Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Palestinians Right of Return’

Palestinians Right of Return is not Debatable: UN Resolution 194 In Force and Enforceable

September 4, 2011 12 comments

Posted on September 03, 2011 by Marivel Guzman

Continuing Relevance of International Law:

by Phyllis Bennis

UN Resolution 273 of 11 May 1949, welcoming Israel into the UN, established that the new state’s entry was based on Israel’s representations regarding its ability and willingness to implement 194.

Right of Return

International law regarding Palestinian refugees was essentially abandoned during the Camp David talks. After the 1948 war, the UN passed General Assembly Resolution (UNGA) 194, which mandated compensation for the Palestinian refugees and assured their right to return home. The UN made Israel’s own membership in the world body contingent on Israeli acceptance of 194 and the rights it granted to the Palestinians. UN Resolution 273 of 11 May 1949, welcoming Israel into the UN, established that the new state’s entry was based on Israel’s representations regarding its ability and willingness to implement 194.

The Palestinians’ right to return to their homes, despite a 52-year delay in realizing that right, is no less enforceable, no less compelling, than the same right of the Albanian Kosovars, in whose name the United States led NATO into war. It is no less than the right of Rwandans returning home from the Congo, or East Timorese going home from Indonesian refugee camps.

In fact, as law professor Susan Akram and others have noted, the Palestinian right of return has an even stronger legal basis. United Nations Resolution 194 was consciously designed to provide privileged protections for Palestinian refugees, with the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol serving as a safety net. Those special rights were not granted to other refugees, whose rights are determined solely by broader international laws.

25 August 2000—Considering that most observers of the Camp David negotiations called the contention over the Palestinian right of return “irresolvable,” it was no surprise that this issue was one of the summit’s deal breakers. Yet what most left out was the explanation of why this issue was a sticking point: Palestinian rights and international law have been overshadowed by Israel’s power.

Israel controls the land of the 530 Palestinian villages destroyed during and after the 1948 war, from which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled or fled more than 50 years ago. The Palestinians have few cards to put on the table. Instead of power, they have only their roughly five million exiles; most of them are stateless. Meanwhile, the United States accepts this vast disparity of power between Israel and the Palestinians, as if Camp David were a level playing field on which an honest broker could referee a fair game.

Continuing Relevance of International Law:

International law regarding Palestinian refugees was essentially abandoned during the Camp David talks. After the 1948 war, the UN passed General Assembly Resolution (UNGA) 194, which mandated compensation for the Palestinian refugees and assured their right to return home. The UN made Israel’s own membership in the world body contingent on Israeli acceptance of 194 and the rights it granted to the Palestinians. UN Resolution 273 of 11 May 1949, welcoming Israel into the UN, established that the new state’s entry was based on Israel’s representations regarding its ability and willingness to implement 194.

The Palestinians’ right to return to their homes, despite a 52-year delay in realizing that right, is no less enforceable, no less compelling, than the same right of the Albanian Kosovars, in whose name the United States led NATO into war. It is no less than the right of Rwandans returning home from the Congo, or East Timorese going home from Indonesian refugee camps.

In fact, as law professor Susan Akram and others have noted, the Palestinian right of return has an even stronger legal basis. United Nations Resolution 194 was consciously designed to provide privileged protections for Palestinian refugees, with the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol serving as a safety net. Those special rights were not granted to other refugees, whose rights are determined solely by broader international laws.

Demographics:

Despite the requirements of international law, Israel specifically rejects the “right” of return, maintaining that allowing the Palestinian refugees to come home would alter the demographic balance of the Jewish state. The claim is accurate: it would more than double the number of Palestinians in Israel, which now comprises about 20 percent of Israel’s population. However, concern regarding the ethnic composition of the country is not an acceptable basis for rejecting international law. The equivalent would be a post-war Rwandan government refusing—with U.S. support—to recognize the right of indigenous refugees to return home because of fears that it would somehow change the Hutu-Tutsi demographics.

Israel apparently offered a “humanitarian compromise” at Camp David which would allow a small percentage of Palestinians to return home based on Israeli-regulated family reunification. Yet Israel continued to reject UN 194, the Palestinian right of return, and any Israeli legal or moral responsibility for the plight of the refugees. At most, one rumor held that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s team offered a passive-voice recognition that “pain was caused” to the Palestinians.

Third Generation Refugee Movement:

After the 1948 war, the families who lost their homes—many still holding their house keys in the expectation of a quick return—clung tightly to their memories. Their children grew up on the romantic vision of Palestine as a paradise where everyone was rich, everything was beautiful, everyone was happy. That second refugee generation created the intifada 40 years later, fighting for a new state in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem; the unlikely possibility of actually returning to their parents’ idealized vision of Palestine inside the Green Line was not at the top of their agenda.

Now, the third generation is growing up in the fetid refugee camps of the still-occupied territories and in surrounding Arab countries. This Oslo generation, these young refugees now in their teens and early twenties, are bringing a new passion and a new realism to their right of return.

On a recent visit inside Israel, teenagers from the Ibda’ Cultural Center of the Dheisha refugee camp traveled to the villages their families had left behind in 1947 or 1948. At that time, Israeli forces ransacked many Palestinian villages, leaving most completely destroyed, with fast-growing pine trees planted over the ruined foundations. Only the rows of cactus that once marked property lines are still visible. A few walls and minarets were damaged but left standing. In most, only the ancient olive trees remain.

As part of an extraordinary oral history project, the Dheisha children have interviewed their grandparents who were expelled in 1948, and then studied the culture, architecture, and history of the villages, as well as where their residents ended up. Now, traveling to the destroyed villages, the children themselves proudly explain to visitors where the school was, where the mosque stood, how the residents made their living, where their own grandparents’ houses were located.

This third generation of children is preparing for a real, not romantic or idealized, return. They discuss what kind of houses they will build, how they will get water, from where their homes might get electricity. They debate whether and how they can live with the Israeli families who have built new houses on and around some of their land.

Compromise:

Is compromise possible? Absolutely. But only if it is based on a recognition of return as a real, fundamental right. The kind of compromise that will not work includes Israel’s proposal for a “humanitarian” family reunification program that would benefit only a few tens of thousands of the millions of stateless Palestinians. Another sure-to-fail “compromise” is the proposal being quietly banded about in the corridors of U.S. and Middle Eastern capitals. This plan envisions a quid pro quo in which Baghdad would settle most of the Palestinian refugees now living in Lebanon—with or without their consent—in Kurdish areas of Iraq from which equally unwilling Kurds are already being expelled, in exchange for a lifting of the crippling economic sanctions against Iraq.

Real compromise might be possible in determining how, not whether, the right of return will be implemented. The Palestinians’ return could be organized to minimize the effects on existing Israeli lives in the area. Palestinian refugees might agree to return to their lands and villages but leave negotiable which plots of land will be reclaimed. Returning refugees may work with Israeli officials to insure an orderly repossession. Certainly not all Palestinian refugees will ultimately opt to return at all. But the right to return is absolute, and cannot be compromised away.

Refugee Involvement in Decision-Making:

The question of who decides is fundamental. Palestinian refugees must be allowed to make their own decisions, accept or reject their own compromises. Current camp dwellers must themselves be represented on the negotiating teams. The starting point of any agreement must be Israeli acknowledgement of the binding legal commitment their government made in 1949 to implement Resolution 194, and to recognize the absolute right of Palestinian return.

In the destroyed village of Zakhariya, as Ibda’ children picked lemons from the prolific trees scattered across what was once their families’ land, one of the adult coordinators who was himself born in Dheisha camp said quietly, “I can close my eyes and see it, see the people coming to the mosque, to the market. They cannot play with this history.”

Phyllis Bennis is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. The above text may be used without permission but with proper attribution to the author and to the Palestine Center. This Information Brief does not necessarily reflect the views of the Palestine Center or The Jerusalem Fund.

This information first appeared in Information Brief No. 45, 25 August 2000.

More Posts Relevant to Palestine…….

Victory for Palestine-Israel defeat in front of the International Community

UN Vote for Palestine State, humiliating Defeat for Israel and US

Palestinian Bid For State Hood should not be questioned, Israel Existence Should

EU Support Palestine Bid For State Hood, Slight Division Not a Problem

Palestine: Arduous odyssey of statehood….OpinionMaker.org

Palestinian Bid for UN Statehood Recognition should not be questioned, Israel existence should be


Posted on August 02, 2011 by Marivel Guzman

Parts of this articles taken from To the Point Analyses Deconstructing The News By Laurence Davidson And Again I deconstruct the News and the opinion, but at the end you the readers are the opinion makers.

Lawrence Davidson argues that, while UN recognition of Palestinian statehood could be potentially of psychological value to the Palestinian cause, “boycott, divestment and sanctions within the context of increasing worldwide awareness of Israel’s essential racist nature shows real promise of results in the long term. In my opinion there is actually a good chance that a worldwide BDS movement, growing steadily for say the next quarter century, can actually achieve the de-Zionization of Israel.”
If he Serious, another 25 years of Israel occupation, Really? Professor? are you kidding? Israel only in the last 8 years have annexed over47 % of Palestine land since they started building the apartheid wall, without counting the other already stolen land in 1948 and 1967.

And there is another threat to already death peace process, “Ideas about annexing parts of the West Bank that until recently were considered extreme have been gaining traction in the Knesset in recent weeks as the Palestinian Authority continues threatening to declare a state unilaterally in September. … “We’ll have to protect ourselves,” [National Infrastructures Minister Uzi Landau] said. “If [the Palestinians declare a state], I’m going to suggest to my government to extend our sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and over the highly populated blocs we have in Judea and Samaria, just to start with.” Jerusalem Post

Going to the UN for recognition.

While Lawrence Davidson is right on his assessment of the great psychological value for Palestinians to boots their moral, if Palestine is recognized, I completely disagree to his second statement regarding BDS to be long term solution, and sending a subtle message to Palestine not to Bid for UN Statehood Recognition, I wonder how long term he is referring to.  Even if he is neutral on the conflict and he speaks only as expert, he is sending the wrong message.

When he include in his article the wording of : Ali Abunimah but only on the surface he explore the words of Ali Abunimah, he makes no analysis of the situation only copying pasting the analysis of this great journalist, that on his own words gave us the looming future of a Palestine recognized by the UN in paper but not in essence, not in substance knowing that Israel has laugh and ignored every single resolution ever drafted against her illegalities and crimes.

Journalist Ali Abunimah is one of the most important sources of information and analysis of the Israeli war on Palestine and the ongoing struggle for justice. He is cofounder of the invaluable Electronic Intifada website and author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse. He talked to Eric Ruder about the latest developments in the region–and what lies ahead for Palestinians.

Right now the International Activist Community, Bloggers, writers, and thousands of old and newly formed Pro-Palestinians Organizations have been spreading the message on the reality on the ground in Occupied Palestine and the serious threat to regional peace with the Existence of Israel as it stands now, playing the bully not just in Palestine, killing indiscriminately but also in the neighbors countries like Syria, and Lebanon and creating an atmosphere of unrest, brewing conflict in a way only Israel is expert on doing, using flag operations and dirty propaganda.

It is hard to accept sometimes that we may be just playing in a chess game that have to end, but we have to rely also on the hopes and ideals that, that we as a spectators have in this conflict we all want peace, so we all are being part of this movement of peace. We can not take away the importance of the Arab revolutions, the threat that the whole of the people raising have in the regime of the region of the Arab world. I don’t think is insulated from the main middle east conflict, all the Arabs want peace, only their leaders keep playing this game of mouse and cat with Israel and the UN.

We know that the official propaganda from Israel and the Paid Media is spreading notion that if Palestine “Unilaterally”  bid for statehood in the UN, the Oslo Accord will be buried. As a thread to insult the intelligent of Palestinians and the world that know that Israel never has comply with the accords. The famous Oslo Accords signed in a ceremony in Washington DC by Yasef Arafat RIP and Yitzhak Rabin RIP, which actual documents were signed by Mahmoud Abbas for the PLO, Shimon Peres for Israel, Warren Christopher for the United States and Andre Kozyev for Russia.

ESSAY ONE: 

The Palestinian Bid for UN Statehood Recognition – An Analysis (1 August 2011)

Robert Serry

Mr. Robert H. Serry of the Netherlands was appointed by the Secretary-General as the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and his Personal Representative to the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority in November 2007. In this capacity, Mr. Serry will be the Envoy of the Secretary-General to the Quartet.

PRESS RELEASE

UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process warns Security Council
of “Dramatic” Deadlock in Peace Process, Calls for “Credible Political Path
Forward” and Bold Actions on the Ground

26 July 2011

In a briefing to the Security Council today in which he described the “profound and persistent deadlock” between Israelis and Palestinians, United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process Robert Serry described as “dramatic” the failure of the parties to meet their
agreed timeline for a permanent status agreement by September this year.
The Special Coordinator underscored what is at stake given the current deadlock. He noted that “the Palestinian Authority has, in key areas, reached a level of institutional performance sufficient for a functioning state” and made real security and economic gains in the recent
period. As a result, Mr. Serry said that “the Palestinian Authority is ready to assume the responsibilities of statehood at any point in the near future.”
However, continued Mr. Serry, “without a credible political path forward, accompanied by more far-reaching steps on the ground, the viability of the Palestinian Authority and its statebuilding agenda – and, I fear, of the two State solution itself – cannot be taken for granted,” Mr Serry warned. He called on the international community to unite and “shape a legitimate and balanced way forward that helps the parties overcome their differences and ultimately return to negotiations. We will continue to work with Quartet partners to seek urgent action in this regard. We also note the prerogatives of the Security Council and the General Assembly.”
Mr. Serry noted that Israeli steps of enablement on the ground had been made in the past, “bold measures have been lacking in recent times”, while worrying developments were taking place in the Israeli-controlled Area C of the West Bank, including a surge in demolitions with 700
Palestinians displaced this year, and continued settlement activity, including the recent confiscation of 19 hectares of private Palestinian land. “Settlements are illegal under international law and prejudge final status discussions, and settlement activity must cease”,
he said. “I urge Israel to do more to empower its moderate, committed and peaceful Palestinian partner”, Mr. Serry said. He also called on donors to ensure that the Palestinian Authority’s fiscal position is stabilized, so that it can continue to pay salaries and meet its other
financial obligations.
Mr. Serry expressed concern that a calm between Israel and Gaza that was restored in early April was “challenged by the firing of some 18 rockets into Israel since 23 June”. He also reported that Israel conducted three incursions and 16 air strikes, killing two Palestinian militants and injuring
eight, but also killing one Palestinian civilian and injuring fourteen. “Militants’ firing of indiscriminate rockets towards civilian areas is unacceptable and must cease. Israel must also show restraint. Tensions have subsided in recent days. My office remains active in
promoting a full restoration of calm, which remains a cornerstone for any broader achievements.”
Mr. Serry said the Gaza economy was growing, but from a very low base. He noted approval of $265 million of UN projects for Gaza as a “significant start” to address Gaza’s vast basic needs including education, housing, and sanitation. However, he urged Israel to allow aggregate, iron
bar and cement for use by Gaza’s private sector, to facilitate exports, and to enable freer movement of people in an out of the Strip, stressing that “We continue to seek the full reopening of all legitimate crossings.” He noted the importance of continuing to combat weapons smuggling.
Noting the closure of a Gaza youth NGO and efforts to intrusively audit international NGOs, Mr.
Serry called on Hamas to fully respect “the free and independent exercise of the functions of these Organizations”. He also urge “full respect for the work of UN agencies”, noting that some of their activities in support of Palestinian beneficiaries had been misrepresented recently.

ENDS ..Read all the other UN Resolution on Palestine Matter

Well Politicians knows how to built a case, they know how to structure the wording to make them sound accommodating to their ultimate goals take for instance this three statements:

“shape a legitimate and balanced way forward that helps the parties overcome their differences and ultimately return to negotiations.

With this is de legitimizing the right Palestinians aspirations to self determination, even in her bid for the UN, he is taking away her right to conduct herself as a state,  and taking the task to the hands of the “Quartet” and telling straight forward to Palestine that there is no UN Vote, that they have to keep “negotiating” and that is the problem, more time passes there is no land to negotiate, all the rights will be taken away, the only thing to be negotiated will be their right to stay Muslims in a Jew State, that what will boil down to the end, if Palestine do not move forward with the UN Vote in her favor.

“the Palestinian Authority is ready to assume the responsibilities of statehood at any point in the near future.” 

He knows that he carries official weight for the Palestinian Bid in SEPTEMBER, so he is sure to leave dates out, the Oslo Accords signed back in 1993 did have a date of “No later than 1996” a resolution should have been meet on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Off course in 1993 Oslo Accords, the most important issues were purposely left out.
Refugee Return, Jerusalem, Settlements expansion, security and BORDERS.

“without a credible political path forward, accompanied by more far-reaching steps on the ground, the viability of the Palestinian Authority and its state building agenda – and, I fear, of the two State solution itself – cannot be taken for granted,”

What is he saying with these classic  political demagogy , pure rhetoric with no clear meaning. Both of the above statements “credible political path forward” what is that? absolute nothing, Ah! the the second very clearly is sending the political message; “The viability of the Palestinian Authority and its State Building Agenda-AND , I FEAR THE TWO STATE SOLUTION ITSELF- CAN NOT BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED. ” he gave his verdict to the case, he is denying Palestine her right to be a viable State, and not because Palestine is not capable, but because UN the club make sure Palestine stay subservient of Israel and in a NEAR FUTURE, taking more land until there is no more to claim for a State. which will bring to memory Bush Speech  in Public Television US official approval  to Israel keep the Settlements Expansion, and really is not that Israel need US permission but with this gimmicks and political charged statements the congress get away to granting money to Israel.

Part I – The Palestinians Go to the UN

On 26 July 2011 Robert Serry, the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East peace process, appeared before the UN Security Council. Mr Serry is a career Dutch diplomat and had led the Middle Eastern Affairs Division of the Dutch Foreign Ministry. There is every reason to believe that he knows what he is talking about.

He told the Security Council that the “peace process”, that is the political process allegedly seeking a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, had reached a stage of “profound and persistent deadlock”. Attempts to resume negotiations are “extremely difficult”, he said. And, “in the absence of a framework for meaningful talks, and with Israeli settlement activity continuing, the Palestinians are actively exploring approaching the UN”. That is actively considering asking for UN recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state within pre-1967 borders.

Mr Serry’s description of the negotiations seems pretty straightforward. The two sides are at a dead end. And, as Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat noted, this dead end follows negotiations that have stretched out over at least 20 years.

“The reason decades of negotiation have settled nothing is because they were meant to settle nothing. The Israelis from the word go used the ‘peace process’ as a cover to steal Palestinian property.”

Indeed, we know that in the most recent phase of these marathon negotiations the Palestinian team had dropped just about all of their original demands. Erekat told US Middle East envoy George Mitchell that the Palestinian negotiators had done everything but “convert to Zionism”.

Yet, the Israelis scorned the Palestinians offered compromises. As Mr Serry indicated, Israel’s settlement of Palestinian land continues. In fact, throughout this entire 20 year process colonization has gone on unabated. And, of course, all of it is illegal under the Geneva Conventions. One of the reasons that restarting any negotiations is so “extremely difficult” is that the Palestinian side has insisted that, as a prerequisite for any new talks, Israel must begin to abide by international law. Israel has refused.

So, it might come as something of a surprise to the uninitiated observer that Israel and the United States are pointing fingers at the Palestinians in this affair.

For instance, the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prosor, stated in the Security Council on 26 July that “now is the time for the international community to tell the Palestinian leadership what it refuses to tell its own people – there are no shortcuts to statehood. You cannot bypass the only path to peace.”

For the initiated this statement makes no sense at all. If 20 years of negotiating gets you nothing but more violence and more theft, to describe that process as the “only path to peace” is to contradict yourself. Something that has proven incapable of achieving X, cannot be the “only path” to X. Just so, to say that there can be no shortcuts to X and therefore one must persist along a road that has historically proven not lead to X is, well, a non-sequitur.

Israel’s staunch ally, the United States, also opposes, with equal illogic, the Palestinian move toward UN recognition. Rosemary DiCarlo, the US deputy ambassador to the UN, announced that the US will oppose any “unilateral action”on the part of the Palestinians at the UN. She interpreted the Palestinian move as an effort to “isolate Israel at the United Nations”. She insisted that the Palestinians resume negotiations.

In response to DiCarlo, Riyad Mansour, Palestine’s UN observer, pointed out that “120 countries already recognize an independent Palestinian state” and so coming to the UN is hardly a “unilateral” action on the part of the Palestinians. He went on to explain that UN recognition of a Palestinian state at this time would be “the consecration of the of the two-state solution” and help make that solution more inevitable.

Unfortunately for Mansour, his words belie the fact that Israel has no intention of allowing a meaningful two-state solution. In fact, all this Palestinian National Authority (PNA) talk and manoeuvring goes on against the background of a stark reality: Israel is inexorably eating up Palestine. The reason decades of negotiation have settled nothing is because they were meant to settle nothing. The Israelis from the word go used the “peace process” as a cover to steal Palestinian property. They are close now to being able to present the world with a fait accompli, those ugly “facts on the ground” and they don’t want any complications.

What sort of complications? Actually, these are more psychological than concrete. As Ali Abunimah has pointed out, the United Nations has never done anything to stop Israeli theft and this “symbolic” gesture of UN recognition will not impact it either. So why should the Israelis care?

Well, here are a couple of possibilities: a) such a move toward recognition on the part of the UN General Assembly would actually replicate the process by which Israel itself became recognized as a state and b) this move would also echo the original intention of the UN to have Palestine divided between Jews and Arabs. Psychologically, the entire process must resonate deeply within Israeli/Zionist consciousness. It is giving them a sort of national anxiety attack.
Alternatives

Leaving aside Israel’s psychological angst and the PNA’s fantasy that their manoeuvres will make a viable solution “inevitable,” we come back to the question of what is really most likely to work in the long term? I think that we have to confront some hard truths at this point.

1. Israel will continue to illegally swallow Palestine. For the Zionists this is a zero sum, one-state game.

2. The United States will continue be an accomplice to the crime by protecting the criminal.

3. The PNA is helpless to stop this.

4. Sadly, the peace process is a fraud. A cover for the on-going crime.

So what is the path of resistance that has the greatest chance of changing the facts on the ground?

1. Well there is Hamas. Hamas is in fact the real government in Palestine if we are to take seriously the notion of democracy. That was confirmed by its victory in free and fair elections in January 2006. That makes Hamas a lot more legitimate than the present PNA and in fact as legitimate as the Israeli government. True, Hamas refuses to recognize Israel and would destroy the Zionist state if it could. But then Israel refuses to recognize Hamas and is in fact trying to destroy it. Both governments have used terrorist methods, though Israel has used them more consistently. In the end the real issue is, once more, one of power. Hamas cannot destroy Israel. Ultimately Israel can destroy Hamas. As an option for long-term success, for changing the facts on the ground, Hamas does not look like the answer.

2. That brings us back to BDS: boycott, divestment and sanctions. The Israeli historian and advocate of Palestinian rights, Ilan Pappe, has pointed out that BDS, as part and parcel of an overall “civil society struggle in support of Palestinian rights, has been successful in key European countries”.

There can be little doubt that public opinion is shifting away from Israel even in the heartland of Zionist influence, the United States. The aim of this movement is to replicate with Israel the process that brought apartheid South Africa to its knees. And, through this process, to actually realize a one-state solution for Palestine. Not, of course, the one-state solution the Israelis seek, but rather a new state of Palestine/Israel that offers “equality and prosperity for all the people who live there now or were expelled from it by force in the last 63 years.”

In my opinion there is actually a good chance that a worldwide BDS movement, growing steadily for say the next quarter century, can actually achieve the de-Zionization of Israel. On the other hand, creating “equality” and “prosperity” in the new state that results will have its own problems, but that is a different struggle for a different time.

Right now, Ali Abunimah is right, UN recognition of Palestine as a pseudo state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip will solve nothing and may well cause more problems for the Palestinians on the ground. Alternatively, boycott, divestment and sanctions within the context of increasing worldwide awareness of Israel’s essential racist nature shows real promise of results in the long term.

We should go with what works.

Reade More …………………

European Union Support Palestine Bid for State Hood

Palestinians Rights of Return is Not Debateable: UN Resolution 194 in Force and Enforceable

Palestine Bid for State Hood Does Not Affect Israel Economy, Peace Talks, or Refugee Return Rights

%d bloggers like this: