• About
  • ODS

Free Haifa

~ Reading, Writing and Freedom Arithmetics

Free Haifa

Search results for: munich declaration

The Munich Declaration for One Democratic State (ODS) in Historic Palestine

27 Friday Jul 2012

Posted by freehaifa in ODS, Palestine, Right of Return

≈ 18 Comments

Tags

Democracy, One State Solution, palestine

The Munich Declaration for One Democratic State (ODS) in Historic Palestine*

Munich, Germany- June 29-July 1, 2012

 One Democratic State (ODS) shall be established in the entire territory of historic Palestine between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River as one country that belongs to all its citizens including all those who currently live there and all those who were expelled over the past century and their descendants.

The country shall be an independent sovereign State in which all citizens enjoy equal rights and all can live in freedom and security.

ODS in Palestine will end ethnic cleansing, occupation and all forms of racial discrimination from which the Palestinian people suffered under Zionism/Israel.

The reunified Palestine shall be a democracy in which all of its adult citizens shall enjoy equal rights to vote, stand for office and contribute to the country’s governance. No State law, institution, practices or activities may discriminate among its citizens on the basis of background, color, gender, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

The State shall be based on separation between government and religion. It will not establish or accord special privilege to any religion; and shall provide for the free practice of all religions.

One of the primary objectives of the new state is to enable the Palestinian refugees to realize their right of return to all the places from where they were expelled, rebuild their personal life, and participate in creating the new state. Private property of Palestinian refugees shall be restored and restitution and compensation arranged. Restoring the rights of the Palestinians will be done while respecting the equal rights and protection of ALL citizens under the law.

Public land of the State shall belong to the nation as a whole and all of its citizens shall have equal access to its use. The natural and economic resources of the country shall benefit all of its citizens equally.

The State shall provide the conditions for free cultural expression by all of its citizens. It shall ensure that all languages, arts and culture can flourish and develop freely. All citizens shall have equal rights to use their own dress, languages and customs, and to express their cultural heritage free of insults or discrimination.

Citizens shall have equal access to employment at all levels and in all sectors of the society. Employment shall not be determined or restricted by language, race, religion, gender, or nationality. Education and vocational training shall not be segregated or specialized in any way that impedes equal access of all citizens to employment and other opportunities to fulfill their talents and dreams.

The State shall uphold international law and seek the peaceful resolution of conflicts through negotiation and collective security in accordance with the United Nations Charter. ODS will sign and ratify all international treaties on human rights and the people of a unified Palestine shall reject racism and promote anti-racism, social, cultural and political rights as set out in relevant United Nations covenants. The State shall seek and contribute to the establishment of a Middle East that will be free of all weapons of mass-destruction.

*A vision shared by all the current Declarations and Initiatives on the one democratic state option for the resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict. The Munich Conference calls upon the supporters and activists of ODS to unite for the establishment of an International Movement for ODS in Historic Palestine.

This declaration in Arabic

This declaration in Hebrew

My ODS Page

Reach Out Letter

Reach Out Letter in Arabic

Reach Out Letter in Hebrew

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Document: The Madrid and London One State Declaration 2007

07 Friday Aug 2020

Posted by freehaifa in ODS

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Electronic Intifada, London ODS Conference, Madrid ODS Conference, ODS, One Democratic State, palestine, Right of Return

The following statement appeared in “the electronic intifada” site on November 29, 2007.

Editor’s Note: The following statement was issued by participants in the July 2007 Madrid meeting on a one-state solution and the November 2007 London Conference.

For decades, efforts to bring about a two-state solution in historic Palestine have failed to provide justice and peace for the Palestinian and Israeli Jewish peoples, or to offer a genuine process leading towards them.

The two-state solution ignores the physical and political realities on the ground, and presumes a false parity in power and moral claims between a colonized and occupied people on the one hand and a colonizing state and military occupier on the other. It is predicated on the unjust premise that peace can be achieved by granting limited national rights to Palestinians living in the areas occupied in 1967, while denying the rights of Palestinians inside the 1948 borders and in the Diaspora. Thus, the two-state solution condemns Palestinian citizens of Israel to permanent second-class status within their homeland, in a racist state that denies their rights by enacting laws that privilege Jews constitutionally, legally, politically, socially and culturally. Moreover, the two-state solution denies Palestinian refugees their internationally recognized right of return.

The two-state solution entrenches and formalizes a policy of unequal separation on a land that has become ever more integrated territorially and economically. All the international efforts to implement a two-state solution cannot conceal the fact that a Palestinian state is not viable, and that Palestinian and Israeli Jewish independence in separate states cannot resolve fundamental injustices, the acknowledgment and redress of which are at the core of any just solution.

In light of these stark realities, we affirm our commitment to a democratic solution that will offer a just, and thus enduring, peace in a single state based on the following principles:

  • The historic land of Palestine belongs to all who live in it and to those who were expelled or exiled from it since 1948, regardless of religion, ethnicity, national origin or current citizenship status;
  • Any system of government must be founded on the principle of equality in civil, political, social and cultural rights for all citizens. Power must be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all people in the diversity of their identities;
  • There must be just redress for the devastating effects of decades of Zionist colonization in the pre- and post-state period, including the abrogation of all laws, and ending all policies, practices and systems of military and civil control that oppress and discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, religion or national origin;
  • The recognition of the diverse character of the society, encompassing distinct religious, linguistic and cultural traditions, and national experiences;
  • The creation of a non-sectarian state that does not privilege the rights of one ethnic or religious group over another and that respects the separation of state from all organized religion;
  • The implementation of the Right of Return for Palestinian refugees in accordance with UN Resolution 194 is a fundamental requirement for justice, and a benchmark of the respect for equality;
  • The creation of a transparent and nondiscriminatory immigration policy;
  • The recognition of the historic connections between the diverse communities inside the new, democratic state and their respective fellow communities outside;
  • In articulating the specific contours of such a solution, those who have been historically excluded from decision-making — especially the Palestinian Diaspora and its refugees, and Palestinians inside Israel — must play a central role;
  • The establishment of legal and institutional frameworks for justice and reconciliation.

The struggle for justice and liberation must be accompanied by a clear, compelling and moral vision of the destination — a solution in which all people who share a belief in equality can see a future for themselves and others. We call for the widest possible discussion, research and action to advance a unitary, democratic solution and bring it to fruition.

Madrid and London, 2007

Authored By:

Ali Abunimah, Chicago
Naseer Aruri, North Dartmouth, Massachusetts
Omar Barghouti, Jerusalem
Oren Ben-Dor, London
George Bisharat, San Francisco
Haim Bresheeth, London
Jonathan Cook, Nazareth
Ghazi Falah, Akron, Ohio
Leila Farsakh, Boston
Islah Jad, Ramallah
Joseph Massad, New York
Ilan Pappe, Totnes, UK
Carlos Prieto del Campo, Madrid
Nadim Rouhana, Haifa
The London One State Group

Endorsed By:

Nahla Abdo, Ottawa
Rabab Abdul Hadi, San Francisco
Suleiman Abu-Sharkh, Southampton, UK
Tariq Ali, London
Samir Amin, Dakar
Gabriel Ash, Geneva, Switzerland
Mona Baker, Manchester, UK
James Bowen, Cork, Ireland
Daniel Boyarin, Berkeley
Lenni Brenner, New York City
Eitan Bronstein, Tel Aviv
Michael Chanan, London
Lawrence Davidson, West Chester, Pennsylvania
Uri Davis, Sakhnin
Raymond Deane, Dublin
Angelo D’Orsi, Turin
Haidar Eid, Gaza
Samera Esmeir, Berkeley
Claudine Faehndrich, Neuchatel, Switzerland
Arjan El Fassed, Utrecht
As’ad Ghanem, Haifa
Jess Ghannam, San Francisco
Ramon Grosfoguel, Berkeley
Laila al-Haddad, Gaza
Haifa Hammami, London
Alan Hart, Canterbury
Jamil Hilal, Ramallah
Isabelle Humphries, Cambridge, UK
Salma Jayyusi, Boston
Claudia Karas, Frankfurt
Ghada Karmi, London
Hazem Kawasmi, Ramallah
Joel Kovel, New York City
Ronit Lentin, Dublin, Ireland
Malcolm Levitt, Southampton, UK
Yosefa Loshitzky, London
Saree Makdisi, Los Angeles
Nur Masalha, London
Ugo Mattei, Turin
Sabine Matthes, Munich
Walter Mignolo, Raleigh-Durham
Yonat Nitzan-Green, Winchester, UK
Gian Paolo Calchi Novati, Pavia, Italy
Kathleen O’Connell, Belfast
Rajaa Zoa’bi O’mari, Haifa
One Democratic State Group, Gaza
Gabriel Piterberg, Los Angeles
Claudia Prestel, Leicester
Mazin Qumsiyeh, New Haven
Michael Rosen, London
Emir Sader, Buenos Aires/Rio de Janeiro
Guenter Schenk, Strasbourg
Jules Townshend, Manchester, UK
Danilo Zolo, Florence

Each individual has authored/endorsed this statement in a personal capacity.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

New coordinating committee of ODS supporters in Palestine

06 Monday Jul 2015

Posted by freehaifa in ODS, Palestine

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Coordinating Committee, Gaza, Jaffa Group for ODS, One Democratic State, One State Solution, palestine, Ramallah, The Popular Movement

Press Release

After a year-long period during which there was no country-wide coordination between the activists for one democratic state, a small meeting was held on Saturday, May 30, 2015, in the city of Ramallah, between some activists from the West Bank and the territories occupied since 1948 to renew the coordination and increase the level of political and public activity for this cause.
Attended the meeting representatives of “The Popular Movement for One Democratic State in Historic Palestine“, “The Jaffa Group for One Democratic State” and “The Committee for a secular democratic state”, as well as key activists from “Abnaa elBalad” and from youth movements (Herakat).
Radi Jarai reported about the latest developments in the “Popular Movement”, which opposed the move by some of its activists who joined the “two states in one space” initiative. The movement’s position is that this program contradicts the ODS principles, because it gives legitimacy to the settlements and does not guarantee the return of all Palestinian refugees. The participants expressed their support for the position of “The Popular Movement” and its efforts to reorganize its ranks.
There was an open discussion with contributions from all the participants. Evaluating the political situation, the participants stressed the need to promote the ODS program as a just solution to the Palestinian cause based on the return of the national rights that were robbed from the Palestinian people, the defeat of the Zionist racist project and construction of a new regime based on the return of Palestinian refugees and ensuring freedom and human rights for all residents of the country on the basis of equal citizenship in a democratic civil state.
At the end of the meeting it was agreed to establish a temporary coordinating committee on behalf of the participants, which will work for:
1. Contact various groups to encourage them to support the ODS program and participate in various activities to this end. At present the focus will be in reaching out to parties, currents and personalities close to this approach.
2. The drafting and publication of political declarations to clarify the positions of one-state advocates in relation to current events at each period and enhance their presence in the media.
3. Organize regional and country-wide meetings of supporters. It was suggested that a general meeting of activists will be held every four months.
The coordinating committee (CC) has already held two meetings and added activists from the Gaza Strip to its membership. In this the CC applies the principle of unity of struggle in all of Palestine. The CC aims to expand its operations through adding activists from other groups that support this program.
The Coordination Committee decided to start preparations for a broader activists’ conference to be held in August 2015. The basis for the planned conference will be agreement on the ODS program as explained in “The Munich Declaration“. In preparation for the conference, the CC will submit working papers detailing the proposed areas and modes of operation. The goal is for all the participants in the conference to join working groups on various subjects and expanding the coordination framework.

The Temporary Coordination Committee for ODS
Palestine

June 28, 2015
(This press release is available in Arabic and Hebrew)

Palestine_hand_and_flag

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

One-state supporters oppose the “Two States – One Homeland” initiative

27 Friday Mar 2015

Posted by freehaifa in ODS

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

One Democratic State, One State Solution, Ramallah, The Popular Movement, Two States in one space, Two States One Homeland, Zurich Conference

its_name_is_Palestine_EnglishOn Wednesday, February 11, 2015, key activists of “The Popular Movement for One Democratic State on the Land of Historic Palestine” published (on Facebook and other sites) a declaration in Arabic explaining their opposition to the initiative called “Two States – One Homeland”. Below is a translation of the document, omitting few sentences related to internal organizational issues of the Popular Movement. The full document can be read in Arabic in the blog “Haifa Al-Hura حيفا الحرة“.

Call to restore the role and activity of the Popular Movement for One Democratic State

In May 15, 2013, The Popular Movement for One Democratic State on the Land of Historical Palestine was launched. Its establishment was announced in a festive gathering and its founding statement was signed by the participants. The statement poses clearly the vision of the movement for resolution of the Palestinian-Zionist conflict based on the idea of one democratic state (ODS), in the full meanings of the term, based on the universal values that have won near-consensus in the international community.

The announcement was met with agreement and praise by all groups that affirm this solution in historical Palestine and abroad. We started spreading the idea by all available means, through seminars, conferences and direct contacts with the public. On the organizational level, a Steering Committee was established to manage the movement and a draft statute of internal regulations (bylaws) was prepared for the movement. In September 2013 it was agreed to hold the congress of the movement, no later than the end of that year, to discuss, finalize and agree the bylaws, to hold democratic elections to the Steering Committee and to develop an action plan. But this congress did not take place.

In May 2014 an international conference of ODS supporters was held in Zurich in Switzerland, bringing together groups from Palestine, Europe and the US. The conference was successful and encouraged the establishment of a global movement for ODS in Palestine, with the Munich Declaration forming the common denominator for all groups. The conference enabled networking among participating individuals and groups.

Recently details of another project began to emerge. This project is not about ODS. It is a Zionist project, sponsored by an organization known as IPCRI, and was published under the name “Two States in One Space”. The Spokespersons for the Palestinian party and the Israeli party in this project were presented as coordinating for a “Two States in One Homeland” project.

We, in the Steering Committee, knew of the existence of meetings with a group of Israelis for dialogue on the question of resolving the conflict, where this project was discussed. Some of us, having participated in those meetings, came to the conclusion that this other project is contrary to and incompatible with the idea of ​​a single democratic state, and therefore declined to continue attending these meetings. Other, however, continued to participate in this other project.

(…)

On November 29, 2014, a Palestinian party and an Israeli party held a conference in the Ambassador Hotel in Jerusalem, under the supervision of IPCRI, entitled “Two States in One Homeland”. Some members of the Steering Committee received personal invitations to attend this conference, but the organizers gave the impression that their participation in the conference is the participation of the Popular Movement.

After we were able to inspect the program of this conference, which presented one of the members of the Steering Committee as a representative of the Palestinian party in this Zionist project, we concluded that this represented a blatant departure from the idea of ​​one state and a clear ideological contradiction. We demanded a special meeting to discuss this issue and take a decisive position in respect of this other project. Unfortunately, the internal discussion was stalled and the arrangements were upheld for some to attend the said conference, partake in its actions and promote this Zionist project of “Two States in One Space”, which we reject for the following reasons:

First, the project emphasizes the consolidation of the faits accomplis on the ground, giving legitimacy to the Zionist settlements in the West Bank, while the international law recognizes the illegality of the settlements. Even the USA says that the settlements are not legitimate. How is it possible to accept the legitimacy of the settlements and agree that the settlers will be citizens of Israel and residents of the putative Palestinian state? Consequently, this is consecration of the current reality.

Secondly, according to the project, the right of return of the Palestinian refugees is to the putative Palestinian state, and not to their places (mostly the areas that are occupied since 1948 – the translator) from which they were expelled. This, by the way, is a classic Zionist position, rejecting the right of return, denying moral and political responsibility for the Nakba and its consequences, and rejecting responsibility for the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Zionism against the Palestinian people, ethnic cleansing which is still practiced even today. This is thus also a breach of the principles of the founding statement of the Popular Movement.

Third, at a time when the owners of the two-state solution theory begin to recognize the failure of this solution, the two sides in this new project reintroduce the two-state solution to the political arena dressed in a new gown by adding freedom of movement and residence, which had in fact existed before the Oslo agreement. The project comes back to limit the freedom of residence of the Palestinians who are refugees since 1948 and to tie it to the number of settlers. Thus it creates equality between the refugees, who were expelled from their land by force, and the settlers, who seized the land of others by force. The project refuses to touch the settlers under the slogan: old grievances are not settled by new injustices.

This issue constituted a point of principled contention in the Steering Committee. We waited about three months for it to be clarified by the group that supported the “two states in one space” project. They claimed that this project doesn’t conflict the ODS solution, but no one could explain to us how this could be.

Therefore, a number of members of the Constituent Committee of the Popular Movement for One Democratic State announced that whoever is attending the conference represents only himself and that we, as a movement, carry no responsibility for this project.

Therefore this clarification has become necessary, because we cling to the idea of ​​the Popular Movement and the idea of ODS. Here we enclose for you the document “two states in one space”, as well as the founding statement of the Popular Movement, for reading. Let every one of the members of the constituent body of the movement and each of its supporters take his or her decision freely, based on their reason and conscience and decide their position (…).

The next step will be to invite all those who decide to stick to the founding statement of the Popular Movement to a meeting for the election of a coordinating body for the movement, to put our house in order again, to design an action plan and to newly launch the movement.

With fraternal greetings,

…

This declaration is available also in Arabic and Hebrew

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Founding Statement: The Popular Movement for One Democratic State on the Land of Historical Palestine

30 Friday Aug 2013

Posted by freehaifa in ODS

≈ 15 Comments

Tags

Munich Declaration, ODS, One State Solution, palestine, Ramallah

(The popular movement announced its establishment on May 15, 2013, (The Nakba Day), in Ramallah. Here, for the first time, you can read its founding statement in English. It was published before in Arabic and Hebrew.)

The catastrophe of the Palestinian people has continued for over a century. This catastrophe began with the Balfour Declaration, issued on November 2, 1917 by the British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Walter Rothschild, a leader of British Jewry for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The Balfour Declaration was followed by the imposed British Mandate for Palestine of 16 September 1922, which denied the Palestinian people their natural right to self-determination and the establishment of their independent state on their national land.

This catastrophe was aggravated by the disaster of the Nakba of 1948, which resulted in the seizure by Israel of most of the Palestinian territory, the displacement of almost 750 thousand Palestinians, and the establishment of the State of Israel on Palestinian territory. This disaster was then followed by the Israeli aggression of 1967, which resulted in the occupation of the remaining Palestinian territories (the West Bank of Jordan and the Gaza Strip and the Sliver of Hamma) and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from the newly occupied territories. This was accompanied by attempts to obliterate the national Palestinian personality, which represents a depth of civilization and a historical connection of the Palestinian people with their national home.

International and regional efforts and initiatives followed one another from the early 1930s onwards with the view to finding a just solution to the Palestine Question and to putting an end to the Palestinian-Israeli and Arab-Israeli conflicts. These efforts, however, ended up in failure, due to Zionist intransigence and racialist mind-set, such as do not accept the other, deny the presence of the victim and correlatively hide criminalities committed by Israel. In the shadow of the Oslo Agreement, Israel waged a frenzied settlement campaign to change the fait accompli on the ground and to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. In doing so Israel went to extremes in denying the presence of the Palestinian people and dedicated its own understanding of the territory occupied in 1967 as a disputed territory, not as an occupied territory.

With the launch of the contemporary Palestinian revolution at January 1, 1965 and the assumption of the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) by the Palestinian resistance in the year 1968/1969, the Palestinian resistance considered the one democratic state (ODS) on the land of historical (mandatory) Palestine to be a just solution for the Palestine Question. This solution was, however, quickly followed by a transitional solution (i.e. return of the refugees, self-determination, independent state with Jerusalem as its capital), which was then effectively reduced to what was is known as the two-state solution and was in effect predicated on the recognition of the Israeli occupation of the part of Palestine, the part it had occupied in 1948.

The resumption of the one democratic state solution comes today in the shadow of the occlusion of the political horizon, the failure of all attempts at a fragmented settlement of the Palestine Question, the continuing Israeli seizure of land and “judaization” of Palestinian territories, the denial of the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people and the reduction of the Palestinian presence into unviable, disconnected and isolated bantustans, thereby making the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state impossible, rendering the interim self-government arrangements of  the Oslo accords into a permanent status.

Thus, we are experiencing all-embracing and deep crises and a closure of the political horizon under an occupation that costs Israel little, additional to the de facto annexation by Israel of most of Palestinian land, consolidating a single state and a fascist and racist system based on racial discrimination in law (that is, apartheid). Additionally, we now face a new Israeli condition demanding that we recognize the State of Israel as a “Jewish” state in its Zionist interpretation, even without a definition of its borders, implying the writing-off the right of return for 1948 Palestine refugees and opening the way for displacement of our people living in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel in 1948. All of these enable Israel propel the conflict into a dangerous stage, which forewarns of a bloody explosion and ethnic cleansing, thereby bringing about yet another stage of the kind of human tragedy in which the Palestinian people have been living since the disaster of 1948.

Faced with this gloomy and bitter situation, establishing a one democratic state on the land of historical (mandatory) Palestine, a democratic state for all its inhabitants, based on a democratic constitution, the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantee freedom, democracy and equality of rights without discrimination based on race, religion, gender, colour, language or political or non-political opinion, national or social origin, wealth, place of birth or any other status – establishing this state is, indeed, a just and feasible solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Our initiative comes as a continuation of the efforts by the groups that preceded us in conferences and activities held and pursued in different places throughout the world suggesting the establishment of the one democratic state as a solution, with the Munich Declaration as a common denominator.

Our commitment to the choice of a one democratic state on the land of historical Palestine is based on the following:

  1. The Palestinian people is one people embracing all of its components: in the territories occupied by Israel in 1948, in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 and in the refugee camps built in the 1967 occupied territories and in the diaspora. Despite their subjection to different systems and laws, the Palestinian people maintained their unity and their national identity. The Palestinian people living in apartheid Israel are not integrated in Israeli society. After 60 years of attempts to impose upon them co-existence and after subjecting them to ethnic cleansing, they still uphold onto their national identity. At the same time, all Palestinians living in the territories occupied in 1948 and in the 1967 Israeli occupies West Bank and the Gaza Strip resist Israel’s occupation policies, particularly Israeli settlement policies, seizure of land and apartheid measures and policies impinging upon all walks of Palestinian life and implemented by the Israeli occupation forces. Likewise, Palestinian refugees in refugee camps in the diaspora and in foreign countries continue to uphold onto their national affiliation and Palestinian identity, rejecting all plans for resettlement and refusing alternative homelands to their own national home.
  2. There are universal values to which civilized nations aspire. These represent freedom, justice, equality, democracy and the acceptance of the other, regarding cultural, racial and religious differences as an enrichment for the society, rather than as a cause for racial discrimination. Therefore, all Palestinian strategies of resistance ought to be guided by these values, namely, human rights values, and by the standards of international law and predicate the struggle on this basis.
  3. Palestine is the place where the religions were revealed. It is not possible for the followers of any one religion to expel the followers of other religions or to attempt to make one of the religions the standard of the political system in Palestine. All systems or strategies of resistance should be based on respect for all religions, including respective religious symbols, places of worship and sacred places as well as encourage religious tolerance and coexistence among the followers of different religions.
  4. The fundamentals of social justice and equal opportunities for all citizens of the one democratic state, embracing all its ethnic and religious components, fair redistribution of public resources and respect for women and gender equality for women and men in all walks of life are to be cornerstones of this state.
  5. Jerusalem is the capital of the one democratic state.
  6. Solution of the refugee problem implementing United Nations General Assembly resolution No. 194 of 1948, by which every Palestinian in the world will have the right to return to Palestine; to recover his/her properties and real estate or receive fair compensation in the event he/she not want to return; to receive fair compensation for the suffering that they have incurred as a result of their displacement from their homeland; and by which every Palestinian internally displaced person (muhajjarun) inside Israel be able return to their villages and properties out of which were expelled in 1948.

Recovery the rights of 1948 Palestine refugees and Palestinian internally displaced persons does not entail expelling any Jewish family from Palestine, but on the contrary – aims at effecting a historical reconciliation among all inhabitants of Palestine, embracing all their components. We further fully realize that all the other solutions suggested (such as the two-state solution or the confederal solution) do not provide a just solution to the refugee problem, such as guarantees their right of return to the residence from which they were expelled. In fact, some of these solutions barter the establishment of a Palestinian state with the implementation of the return of the refugees to their abode.

The establishment of one democratic state will be able to provide a solution to the conflict at chore, and address all the elements of the conflict in historical Palestine as well as build a regime based on justice, equality and democracy. A democratic state cannot be an aggressive state, will not be motivated by expansionist greed, and, hence, it will not be in conflict over borders with any neighboring state. Being established on the land of historical Palestine the one democratic state will be an indivisible part of the regional system, cooperating and in harmony with the rest of the regional states, rather than in contradiction or conflict with them.

One would expect the Zionist movement to refuse this choice because the said movement is based on a racialist and apartheid basis, and on the non-recognition of the other. It is a movement based on colonization, occupation and settlement, predicated on force and suppression.

The principle of acquisition of territory by force is totally and absolutely rejected. It cannot constitute a basis for an acquired right, individually or collectively. The Zionist colonial settlement in Palestine is, therefore, an illegal settlement and cannot at all be accepted as a fait accompli. Confronting this settlement will be central to the resistance program of this Popular Movement. Further more, the establishment of a one democratic state does not entail marginalizing combating the policies and designs of the Israeli occupation, the cause of the daily suffering of the Palestinian people, highlighted by settlements and land grabs, the “judaization” of Jerusalem and other aggressive actions. In fact, resistance to Israeli occupation settlement policies and the policies and measures of Israeli apartheid is central to the combative program of our Popular Movement.

In order to achieve a just solution to the Palestinian–Israeli conflict we, the signatories here-under, have decided to declare the launch of “the Popular Movement for One Democratic State on the Land of Historical Palestine” and strive to reach all our people, wherever they live including the general public in Israel, particularly those who have an interest in this choice. The Popular Movement will try to gain the backing and support of all the forces committed to freedom, justice, equality and democracy in our attempts to develop policies and procedures adequate to resisting  and putting an end to the Israeli racist system of apartheid and occupation. The success of this choice will, therefore, represent a civilized model for the achievement of peace, co-existence and democracy as well as for solution of conflicts among peoples.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Announcement on the establishment of “The Jaffa Group for One Democratic State”

05 Tuesday Mar 2013

Posted by freehaifa in ODS, Palestine

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

Jaffa, Munich Conference, ODS, One State Solution, palestine, ROR, Yaffa

During recent months a series of meetings were held in the city of Jaffa where activists discussed possible routes of action to promote the solution of one democratic state in historic Palestine between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Participants in these meetings were both Arab and Jewish, both female and male – activists from various movements and parties, involved in political, social, cultural and ideological activities.

Not utopia but a necessary solution to pressing problems

The program for One Democratic State is not a utopia but a practical plan to solve the pressing problems of this country’s inhabitants.

The majority of the Arab Palestinian people – the indigenous inhabitants of the country – were expelled from their homes in 1948. They were robbed of their land, homes and other property; their villages and towns were destroyed; millions of refugees were and are still today awaiting return; those who stayed in their homeland suffer occupation, racism and oppression.

For the Jewish inhabitants the system of privileges and apartheid exercised by the State of Israel places them in permanent conflict with their Palestinian neighbors and the other peoples in the region, turning them into cannon fodder for imperialist wars for hegemony over the region.

The regime, based on partitioning the population according to origins and religion, cripples any attempt to fight for a more just society. It turns the great majority of the county’s inhabitants into victims of oppression and exploitation. The continuation of this regime threatens to inflict more wars, thus endangering all those living in the country and peace in the region and the entire world.

We see the establishment of a common society not merely as a solution to many burning issues but also as an opportunity to build a new, better and just society based on fully equal rights.

We aspire to a society which respects all creeds, cultural heritages, and lifestyles, and treats them as a source for enrichment of the society as a whole. Democracy and full equal rights for all the inhabitants of the country, for its Arab Palestinian refugees and for their descendants means not merely the removal of oppression but also true participation in the political process. It means protecting and nurturing the social rights that allow all citizens to live in dignity, to develop themselves and to be partners in developing the society.

The Vision of the One Democratic State

We pursue the establishment of One Democratic State as a just and sustainable solution for the suffering of the Palestinian People. It includes and guarantees the return of the refugees and puts an end to occupation, apartheid and all forms of national oppression and racial discrimination. It guarantees an end to a decades-long conflict and achieves the integration of the Jewish inhabitants in the country through partnership rather than conflict.

The program enables all the inhabitants of the country and the returning Palestinian refugees to be full participants in choosing and shaping the political process. They will live as citizens with equal rights. The Democratic State guarantees security and peace for all and prevents discrimination, oppression and exclusion. It will promote social justice and develop the economy and society for the benefit and welfare of all inhabitants.

The Democratic State should be a civil state maintaining separation between religion and state. All citizens will be able to vote, to run for public office and to participate in the running of the government. The state will legislate and act in practice against all discrimination on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, color, language, religion, political or non-political views, national or social origins, property, place of birth or any other consideration.

We do not want to rewrite anew the program for One Democratic State, which we recognize as implementation of the simplest human and democratic principles. This idea guided the Palestinian Liberation Movement from its inception during the British mandate and during its renaissance in the 1960’s. It was also supported by peace-seekers within Jewish society. Supporters of this solution have published many books and articles and discussed it at many conferences in this country and abroad. We specifically refer to the Munich Declaration (July 1, 2012) as a concise and clear message defining a common denominator for many of this program’s supporters.

Having agreed upon joint action for the democratic solution, the partners to this struggle preserve their particular visions of the character of the future state and the best means to build a society that will guarantee the rights and wellbeing of its citizens. However, before all else we must unite to lay the foundations of the new one democratic state.

What is the group and how does it operate?

This Democratic Solution will materialize by means of discussion, advocacy, persuasion and public struggle using all legitimate channels enshrined in international law. Israeli policies of expulsion, occupation, racism, exploitation and oppression have led to suffering, destruction, wars and a total lack of hope for a peaceful and equitable solution. It is therefore of paramount importance to simply bring into public awareness that a solution is available and feasible. Joint action by all who are part of this solution, including both refugees in exile and residents from all over the country, may prove more potent than any plan advanced by the regime to preserve the status quo. In order to help create conditions for change it is also important to raise support for One Democratic State on popular and official level both in the region and throughout the world.

The Jaffa Group is open to all women and men who support the goals outlined herein and are interested in joining our activities.

It will communicate and cooperate with like-minded groups and movements and will encourage the establishment of similar groups both here and abroad.

The Jaffa Group functions through open discussion among all participants to create internal accord, and aims to reach decisions by consensus. What is agreed upon becomes the position of the group.

This announcement was published also in Arabic and Hebrew.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Yaffa ODS meeting – 6/11/2012

02 Sunday Dec 2012

Posted by freehaifa in ODS

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Gaza 2012, Jaffa, Munich Conference, ODS, One State Solution, palestine, ROR, Yaffa

Report to the activists for One Democratic State in historic Palestine

About the Jaffa ODS meeting – 6.11.2012

The invitation to the meeting was purposely limited, to allow more space for the development of discussion and in order to check to what extent activists from different tendencies and of different backgrounds can work together for the program of one democratic state in historic Palestine. 14 activists attended, coming from different parties, movements and organizations, Arab and Jews.

The foundation for the meeting

We discussed the previous efforts to work for one democratic state (ODS) in Palestine, including the two Haifa conferences (2008 and 2010) and the activists’ meeting in Munich in the summer of 2012. It was made clear that there is no ready-made movement that we can join, but we are part of a common effort to build a new movement that will unite all the supporters of ODS. We take part in the design of this new movement together with similar initiatives that already started in Bethlehem, Haifa, Ramallah and Gaza.

It was stressed that the ODS initiative proposes to establish a democratic state that will belong to all the residents of Palestine and all the Palestinian refugees and their descendants. This subject should be fully clear. Without this clear position, it is impossible to build trust between Arabs and Jews in the common struggle in the reality of occupation and Apartheid.

Previous and parallel experiences

As all the participants are also active in other movements and organizations, and their experiences in these frameworks partially overlap with the proposed initiative, a significant part of the discussion was dedicated to these experiences. We paid special attention to the experience of some of the participants in building a movement for real democracy to everyone, following the social protests of 2011. They emphasized the success of this initiative to reach many different strata of the Jewish public.

We also discussed previous initiatives in support of the one state, as well as more general experiences of left movements and democratic organizations to operate within the Arab and the Jewish public. We discussed various estimates about what limited the success, or even caused the failure, of these attempts.

The issue of secularity

Many of the participants are active in organizations that promote the perspective of a secular democratic state.

Some of the participants expressed concern that without an emphasis on secularism we lose an important aspect of our criticism of Israel’s character, which is based on its definition as a Jewish state and its reliance on religion and religious coercion. Some also expressed apprehension that a new constitution, if it will not be secular, will not preserve human rights and especially women’s rights.

On the other hand, some participants argued that in the general public, Arabs and Jews, there is a strong religious influence, and that under the banner of secularism it will be harder to enlist support for a democratic solution to the pressing problems of occupation, racism and war. It was suggested that the democratic content of political secularism can be included and clarified through the definition of the democratic character of the proposed state. It was mentioned that in the Middle Eastern context, especially in light of the Arab Spring, secularism is sometimes associated with anti-democratic trends.

What we try to establish

It was clarified that we are not building a new party or ideological movement. In this sense our ODS initiative is complementary and does not contradict the whole range of parties and movements that are active on the ground. The perspective of a single democratic state is designed to meet the lack of perspective for real, just and comprehensive solution, a solution that will put an end to ethnic cleansing, occupation, racism and endless wars.

This is an unprecedented attempt to establish a single democratic movement, working for an agreed political solution, in which all the inhabitants of the country and its refugees can take an active part.

The political base should be clear and propose a decisive change compared to the existing anti-democratic apartheid situation – but it allows all partners to retain their various positions on all social, economic and ideological issues. All these topics will be subject to discussion and political struggle within the democratic state when it will be established.

Next meeting – Tuesday 4.12 in Jaffa – discussion of the Munich Declaration

The participants expressed a desire to speed up the organizational stage so that we can soon go public and try to convince the wide audience about the desirability of one democratic state. To do this we need to have further discussions between us (and other activists) and try to agree on a common formulation of the primary things with which we will approach the public.

To focus the discussion, it was decided to discuss the Munich ODS declaration in the next meeting. We should conclude to what extent it can be used as the basis for our appeal to the public or should we formulate a different text.

It was agreed to hold another meeting in Jaffa on Tuesday, 20.11. Following the Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip, which required focusing all efforts in the struggle to halt it, the next meeting was delayed to 4.12.2012.

You are invited to come and bring friends.

You can read this report also in Arabic or Hebrew.

Links for the Munich Declaration

بالعربية

בעברית

In English

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

In Memoriam: Eli Aminov – Goodbye to a stalwart and stubborn fighter against Israeli Apartheid

21 Sunday Aug 2022

Posted by freehaifa in Abna elBalad Movement, Jews in Palestine, Memories, ODS

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Anti-Zionism, Brit Hapoalim, Committee for Solidarity with Bir Zeit, Eli Aminov, ODS, Ofra Yeshua-Lyth, One State Solution, The committee for Secular Democratic State

Eli Aminov, 20 April 1939 – 5 August 2022

By: Ofra Yeshua-Lyth

(The original Hebrew text was partially published previously at https://zoha.org.il/114640/ on 14 August 2022. It is fully available in Haifa Hahofshit.)

With the death of Eli Aminov, this week the small community of opponents of the regime of the State of Israel lost one of its clearest and most important voices, a thinker, writer, worker, and political activist whose original thinking influenced multiple generations of activists and writers.

Eli was born in Summayl, a Palestinian village that was transformed into an impoverished Tel Aviv neighbor­hood in the late 1930s, to a father who had immigrated from Bukhara and a mother who had come from Poland. When he was nine years old, when the State of Israel was established, the family’s Arab neighbors, including Eli’s childhood friends, were turned into refugees, and their homes were given to Jewish immigrants, an event that etched itself deep into Eli’s memory. After his military service, Eli worked in various jobs, and in the course of his life he worked, among others, as a jeweler and as the owner of a print shop.

Eli was a veteran member of the Matzpen organization, which he joined in the beginning of 1967. His signature appears on the historic declaration from the summer of 1967, in which political activists called on the State of Israel to withdraw immediately from the territories that were occupied in the war and to strive for a solution of a just peace with the Palestinian people.

In 1975, Eli left Matzpen to join Brit Hapoalim (the workers alliance organization, also known as “Avant­garde”, the name of its theoretical publication). This was a period of rising mass Palestinian struggle that preceded the general strike and uprising of March 30, 1976, the historic “Land Day”. Brit Hapoalim, which was identified with a Trotskyite anti-Stalinist ideology, emphasized at that time the Pales­ti­nian character of the revolution, and called on Jewish activists to join the Palestinian struggle. It called for the establishment of a socialist state in Palestine, emphasized the necessity to dismantle the colo­nial entity established by the Zionist movement in order to create a basis for a shared future for Arabs and Jews, and objected to the recognition of a right of self-determi­nation for Jews in Palestine – a position that Eli had already championed earlier in internal discussions inside Matzpen.

Eli’s activism was not limited to bringing about an end to the occupation and to the increased militarization of the State of Israel. He also saw the need for presenting a comprehensive alternative, and he was among the first to support the one state solution of a single democratic state in all of Palestine. In the 1990s he ini­ti­ated the estab­lish­ment of the “The Committee for one Secular and Democratic Republic
in the whole of Palestine”. The committee’s principles, which were phrased in plain language by Eli Aminov and Dr. Yehuda Kupferman, included the call for the establishment of one democratic secular state in all of Palestine, in which the economic infra­structure and means of production would belong to the entire population as a democratic right and an expression of its sovereignty.

Eli was close to Prof. Israel Shahak and one of the executors of his will, together with Dr. Emmanuel Farjoun. In the afterword that he wrote for the Hebrew edition of Shahak’s Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, he reminded readers that Shahak had been one of the first thinkers who had defined Israel as an apartheid state.

In his essay “A ‘Binational State’: The New Deception Replacing the ‘Two State Solution’”, published in 2013, Aminov wrote that “there is no practicable political alternative to a single secular democratic state between the Jordan River and the sea.” In his last essay, “From Land Redemption to Apartheid Regime”, which appeared in an essay compilation published this year by November Books under the name The Nation Trap, he surveys the ways and methods by which the Zionist project, for decades before the establish­ment of the Israeli state and during all the years of its existence, dispossessed the Palestinians of their land in order to establish a Jewish nation state. He defined the nation state as an “origin-based meta­physical entity”, and described how the methodical land theft became the basis for the system of Jewish-Israeli apartheid laws, which he described in the essay. Aminov wrote about what characterized Israeli apartheid, as compared to the South-African system. His conclusion was: without a fundamental reform transforming Israel from a state based on ethno-religious origins to a secular and democratic state, a remedy to the apartheid regime is not possible. “Ultimately, the ‘Jewish nation’s’ ownership of the land is the material glue that connects the colonial racism of the Zionist movement with the xenophobic racism of Halachic Judaism”, he wrote.

In his final years, despite a marked deterioration of his health, Eli would arrive every Friday to the vigil in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in the company of Nitza Aminov, his former wife, who had remained a close and supportive friend. He regularly posted succinct and pointed comments on Facebook and on various websites, and addressed many current events in local politics. He was a sociable man and an excellent cook who will be sorely missed by his many friends and acquaintances, those who know him personally and those who came to appreciate his character on the internet. May his memory be blessed.

* * *

Eli Aminov in a demonstration – 2017 – from Facebook

So far Ofra’s article. Please allow me to add some personal memories.

I knew Eli when he was a member of “The Revolutionary Communist League” (AKA “Matzpen Marxisti”) in Jerusalem in the 1970s. I had joined Brit Hapo­alim (that had split off from Matzpen in 1970) in 1973, and we held pointed discussions with Matzpen and with the various factions that split from it. In 1975, Eli and some of the other members of Matzpen Marxisti decided to join Brit Hapoalim.

Eli told me how he had become a leftist activist. When he was young, he had been a detective with the Jerusalem Police. Around that time, Uri Avnery and the “Ha-Olam Ha-Zeh” group organized civil protests against religious coercion, and Eli had sent the organizers a letter of support. Instead of a response from the intended recipients, he was summoned to be investigated and reprimanded because of his dangerous views. This helped him understand the character of the regime that he was serving, and soon thereafter he resigned and became a democracy activist. The struggle for the separation of state and religion and against the central role of the Jewish religion in the justi­fi­cation and foundation of the racist structures of the Israeli regime always remained a key interest of his.

In the mid 1980s, the period of the activities of the “Committee for Solidarity with Bir Zeit University”, settler rabbi Moshe Levinger would organize provocative demonstrations opposite Dheisheh refugee camp near Bethlehem. The people in the camp asked for our support in holding counter-demonstrations. I remember how we would come from Haifa to Jerusalem and drop in at Eli and Raya’s, his then-partner, enjoy their boundless hospitality, eat, and get organized for the demonstration. From there we would continue to the vigil in Dheisheh, all together, including the children, and after the vigil we would either end up being hosted by activists in the refugee camp and have fascinating political conversations, or we’d end up under arrest at the Bethlehem police compound. And after being released we would know where to go: to Eli and Raya’s.

Later, in the “Abnaa el-Balad” movement, we made a number of attempts to broaden the reach and to recruit Palestinian, Jewish and international partners to the struggle for the Palestinian’s right of return to their land and to establish a secular and democratic state in all of Palestine. Conventions with that goal were held in Nazareth in 1998 and again in Haifa in 2008 and 2010. Eli and the groups of activists that he always collected around him were always our first address when we would look for partners whose loyalty to the democratic route was uncompromising and never in doubt.

After the Munich Conference in support of one democratic state in historic Palestine (July 2012), a communiqué went out, calling for coordinated action in all of Palestine (on both sides of the green line), in the Palestinian diaspora, and in the solidarity movement, around a basic plan that defines the demo­cratic principles of the restoration of Palestinian rights, and to solve the problem of the migrant population that were brought into Palestine in the framework of the Zionist project. Eli and the members of the “Committee for One Democratic State in Historic Palestine” took part in setting up a work group in Jaffa and participated in the coordination meetings with various organizations in Ramallah.

I visited Eli in his home in Jerusalem about two months before he passed away. His body was already weakened by his sicknesses, but his spirit was strong, and his mind was sharp and analytical. We brought up memories from 50 years of joint struggle. Together we analyzed recent international developments and agreed that the increased crisis of imperialist hegemony and the resulting ongoing wars only prove that the democratic solution that we had fought for all our lives was not only the most just solution, but also the only sustainable solution, and that for that reason, the fight will ultimately be won.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Some Lessons from October 2015 in Palestine

13 Friday Nov 2015

Posted by freehaifa in Palestine, Political Analysis

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

48 occupied territories, Al-Aqsa, Al-Quds, Israeli oppression, Lynch, palestine, Political Detention, Temple Mount, The third intifada, Zionism

You probably know this famous quote: “It’s difficult to make predictions, especially about the future”. It is so famous, logical and elegant that it is attributed to many different oracles. It is almost as difficult to analyze political developments just as they happen in front of our eyes.

Still it is worth the effort to try, as better understanding of the situation can help us palestine-womantake a more constructive and effective role. And, as is inevitably the case, when we make mistakes in our analysis, and reality soon disproves us, those mistakes can also be used to critically examine our assumptions and analytic methods.

So, what can we already learn from the events of October 2015 in Palestine?

On the methodology

Most of the discussion that I’ve seen over the last month, and I mean those articles that tried to analyze the events, not just promote the cause of the Palestinian liberation struggle (or of the Israeli oppressors), concentrated around the question whether this is “a third Intifada” or just “a Heba”. Mainly they were attempting to assess the strength and durability of the current confrontation.

This one-dimensional thinking seems to me to miss much of what can and should be analyzed. The development of the confrontation between the occupying state and the Palestinian society are influenced by internal economic and social changes within each side as much as by the course of the confrontation itself.

Beyond this, events in Palestine are integrally connected to the system of control and social development in the Middle East and its place in the world. This system is now undergoing the most profound crisis in its modern history. And this crisis in the Middle East is happening against the background of major changes in the relationship of powers between the old imperialist powers and the emerging third world, while technological and cultural changes enable new ways of organization and resistance as well as new methods of oppression.

Who Started?

It is not (or not only) about the blame game… Understanding the dynamics that led to the current climax is an important part in its analysis.

It is my view that it started with systematic Israeli provocations.

One small detail that testifies to this is that “events” in Al-Aqsa started around the 14th of September, the Jewish New Year holiday, which have no meaning for the Palestinians. Actually it became a tradition for the Israeli extremists to use Jewish holidays to initiate provocations in the holy places, hoping that the Army will be provoked by the Palestinian angry response and will retaliate with more oppression and massacres. In the last “cycle” it was only after more than two weeks of systematic provocations that there was wide Palestinian response, by the beginning of October.

To understand the logic of the Israeli provocations, we can also go back to the previous round, in the summer of 2014. The Israeli army exploited the kidnapping of 3 Israeli youth on June 12, 2014, to initiate a wide campaign of terror against the West Bank population. In order to do it they hid the fact that the three were killed on the same night that they were kidnapped, and claimed to be searching for them to save their lives. In the following campaign they killed scores of Palestinians in the West Bank, arrested many hundreds, including many of those that were released in the Shalit prisoners’ exchange. Finally Israel launched full scale massacres’ campaign against Gaza, killing thousands.

Building on Insanity

One difference between summer 2014 and autumn 2015 is that the current Zionist campaign was mostly led by “private initiatives”. There is a lot that should be investigated about the internal dynamics of the Zionist state and society:

  1. The settlers and religious extremists strengthen their hold over all the institutions of the Israeli society: political parties, the army, the police, the courts, the media and much more.
  2. Israeli politics is mostly about an unrestrained “populist” competition who is more openly and blatantly racist and oppressive.
  3. One of the most significant phenomenons of this cultivated insanity is the systematic growth of the “Temple Mount Lobby” and the extent to which it is taking hold within the heart of the establishment.

We should not really have to dive into the depth of the Zionist spirit in order to analyze and understand the functionality of these “messianic” trends. The Zionists rely on their total military superiority against the mostly unarmed Palestinians and calculate that in any confrontation the Palestinians pay a much higher price in martyrs, physical injuries, thousands of prisoners and destruction of the infrastructure of civilian lives.

In their quest to complete the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, what the Zionists are looking for is any opportunity to use their military power against the local population without paying too high price in the region or internationally. Now they calculate that the people of the region are too busy with internal struggles, and the regimes of the region are all mobilized to oppress the masses in their own countries in the most criminal ways. In this atmosphere almost any crime against the Palestinians can pass without severe repercussions.

Mass protests face intense oppression

The first Palestinians response, at the beginning of October, was mass demonstrations that started in Al-Quds and spread across the West Bank, Gaza and the 1948 occupied territories. In Al-Quds there was mass participation in the demonstrations day after day, like in the first intifada. In Gaza the first mass demonstrations near the Israeli border fence were met with deadly fire against unarmed civilians. I will relate later with more detail to the struggle within the ’48 areas, but it is important to note here that it combined a general strike and mass demonstrations as well as many initiatives by young activists all over the country.

With the resurgence of mass demonstrations, all the institutions of the occupation acted simultaneously to suppress the mass struggle by “changing the rules” to be ever more oppressive:

  1. The Knesset passed extraordinarily fast the new law that sets long minimum prison sentences for the offence of throwing stones, even if there was no damage caused. In case somebody might get confused, the severe sentencing is only for “nationalistic” or “terrorist” stone-throwers, so Jews can go on throwing stones at will.
  2. The police give priority to oppressing Palestinian protest over any other issue. Mass arrests are used for any offence from Facebook status through peaceful demonstration to confrontations.
  3. The police and prosecution make mass trial against the youth that took part in the protests and do whatever they can to keep the accused in custody for the time of the trial.
  4. The courts regard Palestinian protest as a kind of “terrorist activity” that deserves detention until trial, unlike any other offence.
  5. Collective punishment was applied against all Arab residents of Al-Quds with roadblocks, closures and police harassment.
  6. Administrative detention is now used not only against the political leadership but also against activists, even some teenagers.
  7. The most severe measure is the usage of live ammunition by the police and the army against demonstrators. It is now systematically used in the Arab neighborhoods of Al-Quds.

Those draconian measures reduced very much the mass protests but increased the pressure and the anger within the Palestinian population.

Individual acts of violent resistance

As the price of political protest became higher, so there is stronger motivation for revenge and for physically attacking the occupation forces or the Jewish population, which is conceived as responsible for the occupation. This led to the wave of knife attacks and some armed or vehicle attacks, mostly by desperate youth that acted on their own.

It should be remembered that the “pacification” to which the occupation aspires doesn’t mean peace and security “for everybody” but the continuation of the expropriation and humiliation of the Palestinians without any response on their side. While mass protests are brutally oppressed and any kind of organized resistance is relatively an easy target to the security services – the individual acts of violent resistance are harder to prevent. They are conceived as success as they cause some harm to the occupiers – also the highest price is usually paid by the initiators.

Lynch as an official policy

Faced by the new challenge of individual attacks which they couldn’t prevent, the Israeli authorities encourage the public, the police and the military to lynch and kill every Palestinian that is suspected of attacking or intending to attack Israeli security forces or civilians.

I already wrote in more detail about the Lynch as an official Israeli policy. One clear example is an interview with “mainstream politician” Yair Lapid (in Hebrew) in Walla, on October 11, where he said that “The instructions should be clear: Everybody that takes out a knife or a screwdriver should be shot to kill”. In the racist Israeli-talk it was clear that, in this case, when he speaks of “everybody” he means Arabs.

More than 75 Palestinians were already killed in this last wave, the vast majority in incidents where no Jews (soldiers or civilians) were attacked or injured. In all the cases the official report is about “Mehabel” – a special Hebrew term, supposedly worse that regular “terrorist”, which is used for Palestinian resistance fighters.

The only cases that were recognized by the Israelis as “mistakes” were the Eritrean guy that was mob-lynched in Bir As-Sabe’e (Beersheba) and a religious Jewish guard that was killed by soldiers in Jerusalem. The mistake, as was clearly stated all over the Israeli press, was that they were mistakenly identified as Arab.

Comparing to the two Intifadas

Comparing the recent events with the latest two Palestinian Intifadas is very useful. One apparent difference is that in both of the Intifadas the whole Palestinian society was mobilized for the confrontation. Another, related, difference is that Intifadas were basically political struggle waged under the assumption (which later proved to be an illusion) that a political settlement is imminent.

Here I would like to express the view that the readiness of people to make the effort and bear the suffering that insurrection against an oppressive regime requires is basically motivated by hope. In the first intifada it was the belief that “the Palestinian state is at a stone’s throw”. It brought the Oslo agreement but no real freedom and no relax in oppression, ethnic cleansing and settlement building. The second Intifada was fueled by the belief that if the stones didn’t drive the occupiers out then rifles might do it. It worked for some degree in Gaza, but Gaza was put under siege and is regularly bombed. The occupation’s hold over the West Bank is now deeper than ever.

The current wave of struggle is different as it is not motivate by the hope of political solution but by disillusion with “the political process”. Still, trying to read the mood in the Palestinian street, I don’t think it is only “despair”. I think the Israeli hysteric response to the latest struggle is conceived as a sign of weakness. The major changes that take place in the region also inspire the belief that powers can fall and the people can change the course of history.

This renewed intense struggle against the occupation, not centered on any political program or the hope for political settlement, is thus not seen as an intense “round” in the historic conflict but more like a “new normal” where both the occupation and the resistance are taking a more violent form.

The internal dynamics of the Palestinian society

Concerning the internal development of the Palestinian society, the first Intifada can be seen as a revolutionary movement. The youth that mobilized in the liberation movement for armed struggle just after the occupation, and later begun to build new civil society in the seventies and eighties, toppled the dominance of the local conservative leadership and led to reorganization of society under the united leadership of the Intifada.

The second Intifada was more like regular war. The Palestinian movements and organizations already established themselves as at the commanding posts of society under the occupation. The newly founded Palestine Authority (PA) was torn between its obligation under the Oslo agreement to defend the occupation and the disappointment as it realized that Israel has no intention to let it develop into a fully independent state. The forces of the Palestinian society, including much of the established leadership, were mobilized to try to push the occupiers out.

In the current wave of struggle the internal dynamics of the Palestinian society are very different. The establishment of the PA resettled after the second intifada back to its function as supplier of local services and a security buffer under the occupation. The youth that are leading the struggle are doing it at their independent initiative, sidelining the PA establishment but not yet challenging it.

Learning from history, we may expect that the next waves of struggle will require and bring more dramatic internal changes within the Palestinian society itself.

The struggle in ‘48

Writing in Haifa, it is natural that I will relate in some detail to the experience of the struggle inside the ’48 occupied territory.

Demonstration started on Monday, October 5, in several locations. One of them was a protest vigil in the German Colony in Haifa, which was initiated by Herak Haifa but organized under the united banner of “The Patriotic and Democratic Forces in Haifa”. It developed into a small spontaneous marching demonstration.

Al-Herak Shababi called for a country-wide mobilization to a demonstration in Nazareth, on Thursday, October 8. This call was met with new level of oppression: Some of the organizers were arrested on the day before in preventive detention (3 women activists were arrested with their fathers!). They were held in prison for 4 days. Buses carrying demonstrators were prevented from reaching Nazareth. The demonstration itself was attacked by the police and more than 20 of the participants were arrested. Some of the demonstrators that were prevented from reaching Nazareth went on to demonstrate in Um Al-Fahm and Tamra. In Tamra the police arrested 3 of the bus drivers, kept them in custody for the night and took hold of the buses for several days.

On the next Tuesday, October 13, there was a general strike of the Palestinian population and a mass demonstration in Sakhnin. The feeling was that, after long time, the people are really united in struggle.

But what seems most significant for me was that this time it was not only the political parties or even the new and more dynamic structures of the Herakat that organized and led the struggle. Many demonstrations were organized, between October 5 and 14, by local groups of activists. Many of them developed into clashes with the police. Hundreds of activists were detained and many are now still in prison and facing trial.

This level of mobilization is not totally new. It happened in the day of the land in 1976 and after the massacre of Sabra and Shatila in 1982. It was seen on a much higher level in the beginning of the second intifada, in October 2000, when a general strike and mass demonstrations brought all areas with Arab population to a standstill for 10 days. It was seen again during the latest onslaught on Gaza in summer 2014. But, relatively to most of the above mentioned events, this time there was no mass massacre to respond to, so it can be interpreted as a step forward in the organization of the activists and their ability to initiate protest.

The question I want to pose here is whether (or how) the new layer of activists that lead the struggle in the streets can become a more effective social and political force. The way to make this transformation may include:

  1. Form a better connected network.
  2. Be involved on a daily basis in the struggle against discrimination and Apartheid in a way that will be felt by and gain the trust of the general masses.
  3. On the organizational level, a new type of mass organization, based on modern communication, can unite Palestinian activists and struggles beyond fences and borders.
  4. On the political level, the struggle requires a political agenda that will expose and replace the current bankrupt one.

Opposition in the Israeli society

I must admit that I didn’t spend a lot of time following events in the Israeli society during this October. Still I have the feeling that in the face of the new challenges and the intensified crisis the level of political opposition was disappointing.

Faced with the challenge of the second intifada and the failure of the Oslo agreement, organizations like “Ta’ayush” and “Anarchists against the wall” changed the paradigm of the left in the Israeli society form a “pro-peace” lobby within the Israeli side of the conflict to “joining the Palestinian struggle against the occupation”.

In the latest events, those demonstrations that took place were mostly back at the old paradigm of equating the “two sides”. But, unlike the old days when the Israeli “peace camp” was strongly devoted to the illusion of the “two state solution”,  now we hear them calling for peace without any concept or concrete program what this peace may be and where it will come from.

The most encouraging things that I read in the Israeli papers were the growing disillusion with Zionism as a whole, as a result of the deepening crisis. The talk about the paradigm of the “One State” is more ubiquitous than ever, even as the clear voice that calls for One Democratic State with full rights to all as a just and positive solution is hardly heard.

Some Israeli retreats

It is worth mentioning that the current wave of struggle forced Israel to some tactical retreats about provocative steps other than the extreme measures that were directly intended to suppress the protest.

The most obvious example is Israel’s proclamations of its obligation “to keep the status quo” in Al-Aqsa. Another example was the temporary suspension of the work on the anti-Arab “nationality law” in the Knesset.

Another issue that exemplifies both Israel’s hysteric and shameless response as well as its retreat before mass pressure was the much trumpeted decision to hold the bodies of Palestinian martyrs. It caused a wave of mass protest in Al-Khalil that led to the returning of some bodies and much wider public funerals.

The regional and international context

Netanyahu has just lost his most important political struggle on the world stage, to drag his imperialist sponsors into war against Iran. Israel used to be an important advanced position for imperialism to guard its interests in the Middle East. But Israel, as it is hated by the Arab masses because of its racist policies, is not an acceptable partner in any of the local and global coalitions that are now fighting for control of the boiling Arab East.

As Israel is losing its “strategic value”, the tension in Palestine is a constant drag not only on Israel’s image but also on the reputation of the Western powers that back it. The “Temple Mount Lobby” that is nourished by the current government is threatening to become a regional time bomb which nobody could ignore.

Like all reactionary forces in the region, Netanyahu tries to ride the so-called “Islamic State” horse in order to resist any change and paint any movement that struggles against the current oppressive order as “terrorists” and a danger to the world’s peace.

Freedom and democratization in the Middle East, the establishment of pluralistic society and new social and economic development plans that will care for the people are still the best foundation to expose and eventually uproot Israeli Apartheid.

Haifa, October 7, 2015

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

ODS support for Britain’s Recognition of Palestinian Statehood

12 Sunday Oct 2014

Posted by freehaifa in ODS, Palestine

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

Britain, House of Commons, Internal Discussion, ODS, One Democratic State, palestine, Recognition of Palestine, Two States

palestine_ods_1map

On Monday, October 13, 2014, Labor MP Morris is expected to propose to the House of Commons, Britain’s parliament, a motion stating that “this House believes that the government should recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel”.

There was a lot of activity in support of this motion in the Palestinian solidarity movement. Even though a “Yes” vote will not be obligatory, and will probably not immediately change Britain’s official policy, it will be perceived as a blow to Israel and a victory to the Palestinian movement. It may be seen as another proof that the collapse of the fake “peace talks” and the massacre in Gaza this summer deeply eroded Israel’s international support.

Free Haifa consistently promotes the view that the only just and permanent solution for the suffering of the Palestinian people is the return of all Palestinian refugees and the establishment of one democratic state (ODS) in all of Palestine, for all of its inhabitants, Arab, Jews and others (as defined in the Munich ODS Declaration).

As the proposed motion clearly contradicts this view, should ODS supporters object to it? I don’t think so. There was some discussion about this issue between ODS supporters, and I would like to present here the case for supporting the motion. To be honest, I don’t really believe that my position will influence the vote in the Commons. I rather publish this argument as a contribution to the discussion about the perspective of the ODS movement.

What is at stake?

Britain is not my state but a declining imperialist power that used to occupy Palestine and helped the Zionist movement to colonize it. In 1936-9 some 20,000 Palestinians were massacred by the British army in the suppression of the great rebellion.

I do not expect the British parliament to lead the struggle for freedom, surely not for a Free Palestine.

ODS is basically not a movement, competing with other movements, like an imaginary two-state movement, for the support of the world public opinion, including the opinion of the British empire.

If it was like this, ODS could be regarded as a hopeless side-show, not even entering the big-men’s stage.

ODS is a program for the victory of the Palestinian struggle – it is both a methodology for the current struggle and a plan for establishing one democratic Palestine after Zionism will be defeated.

As such, our tactics and strategy should be aimed at one thing: Put an end to the Zionist Apartheid regime. The people of Palestine will follow the path of ODS if and only if they will be convinced that this is the most efficient way for them to achieve their liberation after more than a hundred years of colonialism, ethnic cleansing and occupation.

From this perspective we should also examine the planned vote in the British parliament on Monday, October 13.

As far as I know Britain is a longtime supporter of the state of Israel, from their common aggression against Egypt in 1956 (together with France) till these very days. They consistently support Israel’s war crimes militarily, politically and economically.

What may change is that by recognition of an illusionary Palestinian state the British government, in case its policy will change, will be one step less supportive of the reality of Israeli Apartheid in the whole of Palestine.

ODS should promote tactical advantages

A purist position that will reject such a tactical advantage to the Palestinian struggle will discredit ODS and push it to the sidelines.

As Palestinians we should reject Palestinian recognition of the state of Israel, as it gives legitimacy to ethnic cleansing and Apartheid and undermine the struggle for the return of the refugees.

In fact Yasser Arafat was poisoned by Israel exactly because he refused to sign off the right of return. Even Mahmoud Abbas, which said that security coordination with the occupation is “sacred”, refused to “recognize Israel as a Jewish state” – knowing that it would mean outright endorsement of Apartheid and Ethnic Cleansing.

But for Britain to pass from recognizing only Israel to recognizing Israel and Palestine is a small step in the right direction.

Contradictions between Israel and its supporters

Our enemy is not the two state solution but racism and Apartheid, wherever they are. As was explained so well by Ilan Pappe in his lecture in Ar’ara, the “two state solution” is not a political program that the Zionists plan to implement but an illusion that they sell the world in order to legitimize the eternal occupation of the West Bank. By demanding from Israel to stand up to its words, its allies may expose some of the Israeli lies.

The search for more critical position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by some European states is another proof that Israel is losing ground in the struggle for the legitimacy of its racist system. It is not the valuable ally that it used to be at the time of the cold war or for suppressing the Arab national movement. While the imperialists are looking for new alliances in the region, their uncritical support to Israeli racism may cost them ever more.

One for two, two for one

So what is the real relation between the “two states” and “one state” camps on the Palestinian side?

Some Zionist propagandists can try to use an article like this as another proof that support of “two states” is part of the Palestinian “Salami tactics”, chopping Israel slice by slice.

The truth is simpler than this. Most Palestinians naturally aspire to see one free Palestine. Many are tired of the long struggle and suffering and are ready to accept any dignified semi-solution, even an independent state it 20% of Palestine, at least on a temporary basis.

It is not completely secret that some of the salami theory is true in reverse: some Palestinians believe that asking for ODS is what may frighten Israel into accepting the Two States, giving up control of the West Bank.

On the other side we should remember that the whole idea behind Israel is to establish Jewish supremacy in Palestine and to function as an imperialist advanced-post in the struggle against Arab Liberation. This is not compatible with the reality of a contracting Israel that will have to live in peace. While Zionism is getting ever more explicitly racist and war-mongering, for many Israelis looking for the alternative a prosperous united Palestine, integrated in the Arab region, may be more attractive than a small walled ghetto.

One Struggle

Till now things are made simple for us by Israel, which refuses to give up any semblance of dignified lives to any Palestinian. There is no reason that Palestinians will be divided in their struggle while they are all occupied and oppressed by the same colonialist regime.

The immediate message of ODS is that all Palestinians should unite – the demand for the Right of Return, for end to the occupation and for end to all sorts of racism and discrimination are not contradictory but components of one struggle.

It is the struggle by one Palestinian people aspiring to live free in its homeland. ODS is the only clear perspective to achieve this. Every small step on any front to undo Israeli Apartheid is welcomed.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Recent Posts

  • Lessons from the 2022 Knesset elections
  • Argentina’s People Protest Assassination Attempt on Cristina Fernandez
  • In Memoriam: Eli Aminov – Goodbye to a stalwart and stubborn fighter against Israeli Apartheid
  • Bulldozers repulsed from the Muslim cemetery in Balad a-Sheikh
  • Herak Haifa declaration in support of Shahed Abu-Salama

Archives

  • November 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • October 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • March 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • November 2019
  • August 2019
  • April 2019
  • January 2019
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • May 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012

Categories

  • Abna elBalad Movement
  • Administrative Detention
  • Anti Imperialist
  • Arab Revolution
  • Boycott the Knesset
  • China's Rise
  • Corona Pandemic
  • Crisis of Capitalism
  • Dareen Tatour
  • Diaspora
  • Editorial Notes
  • Egyptian Revolution
  • Em Português
  • En Español
  • En français
  • Free Ahmad Sa'adat
  • Gaza
  • Haifa
  • Herak Haifa
  • Human Rights
  • Hungry for Freedom
  • International
  • Israeli Apartheid
  • Israeli Politics
  • Jews in Palestine
  • Kurdistan
  • Latin America
  • Memories
  • Middle East
  • ODS
  • ODSC
  • One World
  • Palestine
  • Palestine 48
  • Police Brutality
  • Political Analysis
  • Political Detention
  • Popular Struggle
  • Prisoners
  • Queer
  • Racism
  • Right of Return
  • Socialism
  • Syrian Revolution
  • Technology
  • The Coming War
  • Uncategorized
  • West Bank
  • Zionism
  • Zionist Fascists

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com

Blogroll

  • Free Haifa Extra
  • Free Haifa in Arabic
  • Free Haifa in Hebrew
  • Yaffa ODS

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Free Haifa
    • Join 184 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Free Haifa
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: