لقائي مع الأستاذ شريف منصور الذي تحدثنا به عن القضية الفلسطينية في ظل صفقة القرن والتغيرات الإقليمية بتاريخ ٢٧/٦/٢٠١٨
Protest took place in Birmingham, UK on 23/12/2017
قناة الغد بتاريخ ٢/١١/٢٠١٧
First published by the Middle East Eye on 1/11/2017
On 2 November 1917, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent a letter to Lord Walter Rothschild, a prominent zionist, which became known as the Balfour Declaration.
In it, the British government promised Palestine to the Zionists – and did so without consulting Palestinians, British Jews, or the wider British population. While Palestinian Arabs at the time made up 90 per cent of the territory’s 700,000 population, they were bizarrely only referred to as “existing non-Jewish communities”. The letter also said “that nothing should be done to prejudice” their “civil and religious rights”.
The declaration had a catastrophic impact on the Palestinians. It eventually led to the creation of Israel in1948, during which Palestinians were driven from their homes, mostly through Jewish acts of terror.
The least the Palestinians might expect on the 100th anniversary from the British would be some remorse and an apology. But Theresa May’s government has not only refused to apologise on behalf of the UK, it is also planning to “mark it with pride” as she told the pro-Israel lobby group Conservative Friends of Israel in December 2016.
This week she will be joined in London by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu as they mark the centenary alongside pro-Israel groups.
Britain had no right to offer Palestine to the Zionists. The claim that Jews have a perpetual right to live there is rejected by Palestinians. Do all Muslims have a right to “return” to Saudi Arabia? And what about a Christian “right of return” to Palestine? Israel is seen as a democracy by its supporters – but many others seen it as a colonialist settler state.
What if Balfour offered Wales to the Zionists?
If we assume that London wanted in 1917 to help a persecuted people find sanctuary, then surely it could have offered the Zionists a homeland in a territory that it controlled at the time?
They say that charity begins at home. David Lloyd George, a proud Welshman, was British prime minister at the time of the declaration. What if the Balfour Declaration had read: “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine Wales of a national home for the Jewish people?”
Present day Wales covers 20,779 sq km. Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip covers 20,770 sq km.
The population of Wales in 1917 would have been around 2.5 million while that of Palestine was around 1 million (Jews made up less than 10 percent of that number).
Had Balfour offered Wales to the Zionists, it is safe to say that the Welsh would have rejected the Declaration. Jews, though disappointed at failing to obtain Palestine, would soon have started arriving to settle the land.
There would likely have been tensions between the two groups. London would have tried to keep the peace but would likely have failed, especially given the ongoing fight in Ireland – which the British also controlled – for independence.
The Zionists would have set up armed militias to fight the Welsh. More and more Jews would have arrived in Wales during the early 1940s. The United Nations would then intervene in Wales, as it did in Palestine, and offer a partition plan that gave Jews 56 percent of the land, leaving the indigenous Welsh with only 44 percent.
Does anyone believe the Welsh would have agreed to give up an inch of their homeland to the Zionists? Or would they have resisted, including through armed struggle?
In 1948, the Zionists would declare their independence and establish Israel as a state. They would also start the process of expanding their hold on Wales. Welsh villages would be destroyed. Some two million Welsh refugees would flee to England, Scotland and Ireland. Some would even make it to France and Spain.
When the guns fell silent, Israel would extend the area of the former Wales that it occupies to 78 percent, well beyond that of the partition plan. The UN would issue a resolution calling on Israel to allow refugees to return – but Israel would refuse.
The world would call for a two-state solution in which Israel and Wales would live side by side, with Cardiff as a shared capital. In 1967, Israel would attack the Irish and the Scots, who try to help the Welsh resistance regain their occupied land. Eventually Israel would capture the whole of Wales and declare Cardiff as its eternal, united capital. More Welsh would be expelled to neighbouring countries such as Ireland.
For “security’ reasons” Israel would begin to build settlements for Jews in occupied Wales, near population centres such as Swansea. It would make it increasingly difficult for a two-state solution to be realised. Abandoned by the international community and seeing their land eroded further, the Welsh would start a ‘gwrthryfel Cymreig’ (the Welsh uprising, or intifada) in 1987, which would be suppressed by Israel by 1991.
In 1993, secret talks in Finland between the Welsh and the Israelis would result in the Helsinki Accords. The Welsh Liberation Organisation (WLO) would recognise Israel – but Israel would only recognises the (WLO) as the “sole representative of the Welsh people”.
Resistance from the Gwent Strip
There would be no genuine move towards peace, which would lead to a viable Welsh state by 1998. Instead Israel would increase its settlement enterprise and divide the occupied Welsh territories – including much of the former county of Dyfed – into areas A, B and C.
Israel would link the settlements in the occupied Welsh territories to each other and to Israel. It would apply military law to the Welsh but civil Israeli law to the illegal Jewish settlers.
The Welsh would see no end to their occupation. A second gwrthryfel would erupt in 2000. This time it would be more violent. The Welsh would be accused of being terrorists.
Israel would build a wall deep inside occupied Welsh areas, including Gwent, and increase the number of checkpoints to limit the movement of people, animals and goods. It would also capture most of the water resources and sell them to the Welsh at inflated prices.
The Gwent Strip would be particularly problematic and become a hub of resistance. Israel would decide to remove its settlers and then lay siege to the territory, a siege which would last to this day.
In Israel itself, Welsh citizens would be treated as second-class, subject to 60 discriminatory laws. They would be able participate in Israel’s democracy – but it would really be a democracy for Jews only.
In Cardiff, Israel would manipulate the population demographics to ensure that there was always a Jewish majority. The Welsh would be frustrated by a planning system which would not allow them to build houses in occupied Cardiff.
Eventually some would build homes without permission, only for the Israeli authorities to demolish their homes. The state would revoke their “residency” permits if they judge Cardiff not to be their “centre of life“.
The Welsh would not be allowed access to an airport or a seaport. To travel abroad they would have to use the border crossing into England and then fly from Bristol or Birmingham.
The Welsh catastrophe
And in the Middle East? Despite earlier Zionist wishes, Palestine was never promised as a Jewish homeland. Instead an independent Palestinian Arab state was established when the British mandate ended there in 1947.
Its capital is Jerusalem, where Muslims, Jews and Christians live happily to this day. The city has its own Welsh Solidarity Campaign, which works to support the legitimate rights of the Welsh people.
On 2 November 2017, in this alternative future, London will celebrate the centenary of the Welsh Balfour Declaration “with pride”.
But the British prime minister will refuse to apologise to the Welsh for Britain’s role in their dispossession and subsequent trychineb (the Welsh word for “catastrophe”).
Will the Welsh in the occupied territories likewise be celebrating?
– Kamel Hawwash is a British-Palestinian engineering professor based at the University of Birmingham and a longstanding campaigner for justice, especially for the Palestinian people. He is vice chair of the British Palestinian Policy Council (BPPC) and a member of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC). He appears regularly in the media as commentator on Middle East issues. He runs a blog at www.kamelhawwash.com and tweets at @kamelhawwash. He writes here in a personal capacity.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
Photo: Palestinians girls, relatives of 12-year-old Palestinian Waleed Abu Kamar who was killed during an Israeli attack, cry during his funeral in Rafah, south of Gaza city May 20, 2004 (REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic)
مشاركتي في برنامج الحصاد على قناة الجزيرة بتاريخ ٢٢/٤/٢٠١٧
First published by the Middle East Eye on 26/9/2016
The 2016 annual pilgrimage of world leaders to address the United Nations General Assembly in New York was dominated by the Syria crisis.
While many speakers ramble on to a half empty hall, others try to get important messages across to the assembly of world nations.
Those speaking on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict have tended to attract particular attention as the world holds its breath to see if there is any chink of hope that this decades-old conflict could soon be resolved.
US President Barack Obama, making his final address, kicked matters off, telling Palestinians to “reject incitement and recognise the legitimacy of Israel”. He also told Israelis that peace won’t come until “Israel recognises it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land”.
However, the irony of one of his other statements was lost even on him when he said, with reference to Donald Trump, “A nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself,” referring to Trump’s plan to build a wall on the border with Mexico. Israel, of course, is doing just that.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s speech was more a plea to the world community that Palestinians had gone more than the extra mile for peace. “As you all are aware, we have accepted the primacy and judgment of international law and resolutions of international legitimacy, and made a historic and immense sacrifice, when the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, accepted to establish the State of Palestine on the 4 June 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. What more can be asked of us?”
Abbas described Israeli violations that are indicative of its real intentions not to reach a just peace with the Palestinians. He said that Israel “must cease all of its settlement colonisation activities and aggressions against our cities, villages and refugee camps. It must cease its policies of collective punishment and its demolition of Palestinian homes. It must cease its extrajudicial executions and cease the arrest of our people, and must release the thousands of our prisoners and detainees. It must cease its aggression and provocations against the Holy Al-Aqsa Mosque. For all of these policies and practices prevent an environment in which peace can be realised in our region.”
He asked how can anyone seeking peace perpetrate such actions. Its actions he claimed undermine realization of the two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 borders. He then asked “Does Israel want one state”? That question was probably the most telling in his speech as the PA has not been known to even contemplate a one-state solution. Is Abbas therefore preparing the ground for a shift in policy as he sees the two-state solution disappearing before his eyes?
Plea to Britain
The other headline-making statement of his speech was the request that as we approach the 100th anniversary of the “notorious” Balfour Declaration, Britain should “draw the necessary lessons and to bear its historic, legal, political, material and moral responsibilities for the consequences of this declaration, including an apology to the Palestinian people for the catastrophes, miseries and injustices that it created, and to act to rectify this historic catastrophe and remedy its consequences, including by recognition of the State of Palestine.”
While Palestinians would welcome such an apology, they would place a strategy for realising their rights above this. The speech lacked an articulation of the strategy the PA has for achieving this and left Palestinians disappointed and frustrated. The reaction to his speech was flat in comparison to the almost euphoric reception to his speech in 2012 when he asked the Assembly to endorse the PLO’s request for Palestine to be recognised as a non-member observer state, which was subsequently accepted with an overwhelming majority.
The Israeli Prime Minister as usual treated the United Nations with complete disdain. The organisation which Israel claims gave it its legitimacy is seen by Netanyahu as an anti-Israel organisation. He stated that “the UN, begun as a moral force, has become a moral farce”. He slammed the UN Human Rights Council as a “joke” claiming that “each year it condemns Israel more than all the countries of the world combined”. He even described UNESCO as “part of the circus”. In April, UNESCO passed a resolution on Jerusalem which infuriated Israel by describing “so-called” Jewish sites and putting the “Western Wall Plaza” in quotation marks.
Netanyahu likened this to “denying the connection between the Great Wall of China and China”. However, his message was that Israel is far from isolated, enjoying relations with 160 countries and most importantly, he claimed that “for the first time in my lifetime, many other states in the region recognise that Israel is not their enemy. They recognise that Israel is their ally. Our common enemies are Iran and ISIS. Our common goals are security, prosperity and peace. I believe that in the years ahead we will work together to achieve these goals, work together openly.”
He did admit however, albeit indirectly, that it is the US that has his and Israel’s back at the UN and hardly anyone else. “The United Nations denounces Israel; the United States supports Israel.” He went on to ridicule Abbas’s speech and in particular his request for an apology from Britain for the Balfour Declaration. “He’s preparing a lawsuit against Britain for that declaration from 1917. That’s almost 100 years ago – talk about being stuck in the past.” Interesting that he should claim Palestinians are stuck in the past going back just a century when the Zionist movement’s claim to Palestine goes back thousands of years.
Invitation to Abbas
Netanyahu did not resort to any physical prop this time unlike those he used in the past, particularly his claim Iran was close to producing a nuclear bomb. However, his virtual prop was an offer to PA President Abbas. “Wouldn’t it be better if instead of speaking past each other we were speaking to one another? President Abbas, instead of railing against Israel at the United Nations in New York, I invite you to speak to the Israeli people at the Knesset in Jerusalem. And I would gladly come to speak to the Palestinian parliament in Ramallah,” he asked.
It was left to Jordan’s King Abdullah to summarise where things stood, implicitly laying blame for the stalemate at Israel’s door: “No injustice has spread more bitter fruit than the denial of a Palestinian state. I say: Peace is a conscious decision. Israel has to embrace peace or eventually be engulfed in a sea of hatred in a region of turmoil.”
What both Netanyahu and Abbas must have realised was the clear descent of the Middle East conflict from its usual prominence as an issue to almost a side issue. That may be comforting for Israel as it seeks to deflect the world’s attention to continue its colonisation of Palestine, but it is worrying for Palestinians.
The most unfortunate message that could be sent to Palestinians is that their plight is only visible to the world when they resort to violence as their peaceful, non-violent strategy seems to have tragically failed.
Israel too should realise that despite Netanyahu’s words, Israel is isolated among ordinary people, if not among governments. Netanyahu should also reflect that he too is isolated; after all, he needs 20 security guards to accompany him to the toilet in New York.