The neo-Palestinians

“Neo-Palestinians” is not an imitation of “neo-conservatives”, a clique within the American right-wing that believes might is right and which flourished during Bush Jr’s presidency. It was, in fact, taken from the reality of Palestinians today; the old Palestinians used to go about national projects with honesty and frankness and possessed great skill in communicating with the people. More importantly, they were keen on committing themselves to the issues of the people and their national affairs.

The neo-Palestinians, on the other hand, are those go about national work by monopolising power, acting arrogantly, sweet-talking the people, manipulating words, and saying the opposite of what they actually mean; they have become the most hated amongst their people. The most recent example of neo-Palestinian sweet talk is what they call the draft resolution for submission to the UN Security Council (put together without taking into consideration the usual Palestinian references), in order to force Israel to withdraw from the occupied Palestinian territories.

It is worth remembering that there are several existing resolutions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly, as well as others by various Arab, Islamic and Non-Aligned groups, all of which demand that Israel must withdraw from the occupied territories. These resolutions are still on the books and still in the Israeli government’s dustbins. So how will a new resolution differ from any of its predecessors, especially given that the neo-Palestinians did not insist that their draft be issued in accordance with Chapter VII of the UN Charter in order to make it binding?

The resolution content suggests that there is a neo-Palestinian decoy at play again. In 1988, the Palestinian leadership met and launched a media campaign announcing that the Palestine National Council would be holding its conference in Algeria to announce the establishment of the Palestinian state. The conference went ahead and the leaders embraced one another when the Palestinian state was announced; the audience wept and international recognition of the newly-declared state followed. We found out later that this was all a decoy in order to recognise UN Security Council Resolution 242 issued on 22 November 1967, after the PLO had had a firm position rejecting this resolution and saying it was not concerned with it.

The plan now is for the neo-Palestinians to go to the UN Security Council to get a resolution demanding Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinian territories by the end of 2017. The neo-Pals must know how futile this move is and that it is doomed to failure due to America’s unquestioned support which guarantees Israel’s continued occupation of Palestine. In reality, this move is an attempt by the neo-Palestinians to resume negotiations without having the insist on an end to Israeli settlement expansion; to be more precise, it is an attempt to revive John Kerry’s project which failed to make any progress by the end of April 2014, and only resulted in yet more Palestinian concessions.

There isn’t enough time to discuss the draft resolution in detail, but I will make a few comments on some of the main clauses. After 13 introductory or preliminary clauses setting out the rationale, which include an illogical recalling of a number of UN resolutions, especially Resolution 181 (maybe to recognise the Jewishness of the state of Israel), the draft “Affirms the urgent need to attain, no later than 12 months after the adoption of this resolution, a just, lasting and comprehensive peaceful solution that brings an end to the Israeli occupation since 1967 and fulfils the vision of two independent, democratic, and prosperous states, Israel and a sovereign, contiguous and viable State of Palestine living side by side in peace…” Just a year after the resolution is adopted, a “just and peaceful solution” will be achieved which will result in “putting an end to the Israeli occupation”. This reminds me of the US secretary of state’s proposal which, in summer 2013, said that “within 9 months”, all of the issues pending between the Palestinians and Israelis would be resolved. The 9 months came and went but nothing was achieved except an additional layer of illegal Israeli settlements.

The neo-Palestinians accepted Kerry’s promise in 2013 and dropped the precondition that they had held on to since 2010, that “negotiations will not be resumed until settlements stop”. Did the neo-Pals believe that they would be able to achieve what Kerry could not just by proposing the issue in the Security Council, which is subject to the American veto? Or will this be a rerun of the failed project? Before I move on to the other clauses, I must reiterate that the draft resolution promises to achieve withdrawal and a just solution, but this is just another way to throw dust in the people’s eyes, as it would be naïve in the extreme to believe that Israel’s withdrawal will be “achieved” by the end of 2017.

The draft resolution reveals that it is simply another trick by which the neo-Palestinians want to reproduce Kerry’s project. Arab delegations, led by the Secretary-General of the Arab League, rushed to New York in order to give the neo-Pals’ proposal an Arab fig-leaf in the hopes that this new “decoy” would cover up the remaining clauses in the resolution, which contradict the first clause.

The second clause in the draft resolution insists that “the negotiated solution will be based on the following parameters”. This contradicts the first clause, which claimed that 12 months after the resolution is adopted, Israel’s withdrawal will be achieved and the occupation will end; so what is there to negotiate after the withdrawal is completed? The second clause lists the parameters that these negotiations will be based on, and one of these parameters are security arrangements, the same arrangements that Kerry mentioned in his initiative. The dispute at the time was over the time frame desired by the Israelis and the time frame desired by the neo-Palestinians. In addition, the neo-Pals are promising to ensure Israel’s security by “preventing terrorism”, but how can they guarantee this, especially since the US, with all its might and expertise, is unable to do so, and after waging a bloody war on Afghanistan and Iraq is now fighting the terrorists in Somalia and Yemen, as well as the Islamic State (ISIS) in northern and eastern Syria and Iraq? Is there any document or clause in which the neo-Palestinians demand that Israel stop settlers from kidnapping and burning another Mohammed Abu Khudair? It is as if they do not see Israel’s state terrorism committed against the Palestinians in Gaza, the most recent of which was the July 2014 attack. Who will determine which terrorism needs to be combatted and what its defining characteristics are?

This clause represents the worst dangers that the neo-Palestinians are trying to promote through their proposal; it fails to mention what their own people have suffered, including displacement, ethnic cleansing and massacres. Instead, the neo-Pals, either deliberately or accidently, joined the ranks of the Israelis when they describe their people as being the biggest threat to Israel rather than describing them as the victims of Israel who have bled for the past seven decades. This denial of Palestinian rights is a shameful submission to the Israelis and Europeans. National dignity rejects such actions, which do not express the Palestinians’ true feelings.

Another parameter proposed by the neo-Palestinians is “a just and agreed solution to the Palestine refugee question on the basis of the Arab Peace Initiative, international law and relevant United National resolutions, including resolution 194 (III).” Doesn’t this actually concede the right of return for refugees? The right of return was legitimised in Resolution 194 and was reiterated over 100 times by the UN General Assembly, until it became an integral part of international law, which binds all countries without the need to issue any national legislation for its application. However, in stating that the right of return is to be “based on Resolution 194” the neo-Palestinians are conceding it as a legal right because the resolution itself must be implemented, not implemented “on the basis of the resolution”. Would the neo-Palestinians dare to concede the most sacred individual right of the Palestinians? And if they would, do they have the authority to do so? If so, who gave them this authority?

As for Jerusalem, the resolution foolishly and imprudently stipulated that “Jerusalem will be a joint capital for both states”. The neo-Palestinians now need to explain to their people where they got this idea from when all the resolutions issued by the national committee and the PLO Executive Committee, in addition to all statements of the Palestinian leadership, all reiterate that Jerusalem is the capital of the Palestinian state. In any case, to which Jerusalem are they referring? Does it include East and West Jerusalem, or is West Jerusalem given to Israel and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, or both shared by us and them? The neo-Palestinian gentlemen must know that since its occupation in 1967, East Jerusalem has been and is regarded as an occupied territory about which many UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions have been issued, as well as an advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice in 2004. If the land is considered occupied by the entire world, how can it be conceded? Who has the authority to make this concession?

The final parameter proposed by the neo-Palestinians in their resolution is that “an agreed settlement of other outstanding issues, including water” is reached. The water issue is not merely an “outstanding issue”; it is a matter of life or death for Palestine. The Israelis have been stealing this national resource since their occupation of 1967 and they have deprived Palestinian farmers from accessing it, except for a very small amount. When the Israelis stole Sinai’s petrol, they compensated Egypt for stealing its national resource after the Egyptians insisted that they did so; they were aware of their rights. Palestine’s water is just such a national resource. The water issue is now at the same level of the Jerusalem and settlement issues, as the average water consumption of a Palestinian individual is barely two-thirds of the minimum safe level stipulated by the World Health Organisation. Consumption by Israeli settlers is about four times as much as that of the Palestinians, and the water they take belongs mostly to the Palestinians. Even the Palestinians’ share of water outlined in the second Oslo Accords is not being delivered by the Israelis.

With the growing population, the neo-Palestinians must acknowledge the importance of water, as it is a national resource and a sovereign right of the Palestinian people in accordance with international resolutions. In addition to this, the neo-Pals must know that the first Israeli military order regarding water in the West Bank was issued on 7 June 1967, during the Six-Day War, which proves that they planned to steal Palestinian water stocks from the very beginning of the occupation. The neo-Pals must realise that their people need water more than Israel needs security, as the Palestinians have no water sources other than their groundwater, while Israel is a nuclear state in bed with the Americans and the Europeans. I must also add that the Apartheid Wall, which was not addressed by the neo-Pal resolution, was built to ensure that the underground water supplies across the occupied West Bank all fall on the “Israeli” side.

So, dear neo-Palestinians, we experienced your genius with the Oslo Accords; they were more harmful to the Palestinians than the British Mandate and the UN Partition Plan. The accords, especially the Declaration of Principles and Oslo 1 and 2 are a purely Israeli creation. Despite this, Israel has been unwilling and unable to commit to the conditions that it put there itself. On this basis alone, how can you achieve Israeli withdrawal and a just or unjust final agreement? Stop being the new orientalists; this is Palestine, not a farm in the suburbs of Jericho.

Translated from Al Quds Al Arabi, 30 December 2014

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.