-
Present-day Israelites are in stark contrast to the Jewish refugees who arrived in Palestine over 70 years ago
“The Germans have destroyed our families and homes – don’t you destroy our hopes.” These were the haunting words hanging off the side of a ship on a banner, when hundreds of Jewish refugees arrived in Palestine in 1947, seeking a land where they would be safe from the evils they had been subjected to during the Second World War. “Death to Arabs” was the slogan their grandchildren chanted through the streets of Jerusalem this week.
“Israel has the right to self-defence” – another such phrase, overused by hypocritic world powers who reveal themselves all too fully by siding with Israeli settlers and soldiers who ethnically cleanse an entire population of innocent people, whose only fault was to give refugees a home to feel safe in decades ago.
Sections of the global media are reporting that Palestine and Israel have been engaging in a long-standing “conflict”. This, in fact, is a myth. There is no conflict. There is only “settler colonialism” and “ethnic cleansing”. What is happening in Palestine can also be referred to as a military occupation, with a daily dose of good old-fashioned land theft to ensure the truth of the Palestinian people is erased, street by street and brick by brick. A “conflict” entails equal footing; those who report that “clashes” are erupting between the two sides must have a very different version of what a “clash” truly looks like. It most definitely is not equal footing when a child is throwing a stone at a tank.
What we see unfolding within occupied Palestine is an active oppressor colonising the lands it has sought to take over for decades, armed with the support of $ 3.8 billion a year in aid, given to them by none other than our favourite “Champion of Human Rights”, the US. This aid has been paid for by US tax dollars since 2016 and will continue to be paid to Israel for the next 10 years. Yes, very much equal footing.
United Nations Resolution 37/43, dated 3 December 1982, “reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity, and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.” This resolution’s preamble also makes it very clear that it refers specifically to the rights of Palestinians, stating: “Considering that the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence, and return to Palestine and the repeated acts of aggression by Israel against the peoples of the region constitute a serious threat to international peace and security.” In simple terms, Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is illegal, and therefore Palestinians have a right to “armed struggle” against their illegal occupier – Israel, ipso facto, Palestinians have a right to defend themselves against Israel, but Israel’s right to defend itself against Palestinian resistance is not guaranteed in the same manner. If only the world “powers” had read this resolution; if only they actually even cared.
Despite this clear-cut evidence of brash violations of international law, we still saw a visibly uncomfortable US State Department Spokesperson Ned Price offer the following response to a question he was asked on Tuesday about whether Palestine held the right to self-defence as well, or not: “Broadly speaking, we believe in the concept of self-defence. We believe it applies to any state. I don’t think that – I certainly don’t want my words to be misconstrued.”
For a country which prides itself on being the gatekeeper of democracy, freedom, and all things pure and perfect, Price most definitely dodged that opportunity to uphold the human rights of innocents quite effectively.
What is truly glorious is tracking ex-President Obama’s Twitter account during this crucial moment in history; after all, he did win the Nobel Peace Prize a few years ago. One looks forward to what he always has to say to try and de-escalate tensions within the Middle East, as his opinion is so widely revered. This week, he managed to tweet about the death of his dog, Mother’s Day, and International’s Nurses’ Day. Maybe if we read between the lines, he was secretly lamenting the loss of life when so many mothers lost their lives in the recent Gaza bombings, and his tweet on International Nurses’ Day may have been a subtle nod to all the Palestinian healthcare workers who do their best to save the lives of all the victims of Israel’s atrocities. One can only hope these attempts to decode his cleverly coded messages on this catastrophic situation are accurate.
What has transpired in Sheikh Jarrah this week has left many in the world questioning whether this occupation and subsequent colonisation is based on a land dispute or a religious one. Strictly speaking, Sheikh Jarrah’s tensions are heavily buried within a long-standing legal dispute at its very core. This case garnered unprecedented attention in the wake of the recent Human Rights Watch (HRW) report accusing Israel of engaging in “apartheid” practices, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation of alleged Israeli war crimes.
What caused this legal fire to rage out of control was when the Jerusalem District Court, in February 2021, upheld an earlier court decision that in the absence of payment of rent, the Palestinian residents must vacate the premises. The tenants appealed to the Supreme Court, with a final verdict expected soon, but in the meantime, Israeli settlers started doing what they do best: Forcing evictions.
On Monday, (most of) the world watched in horror as images of Al-Aqsa mosque being stormed by Israeli troops emerged during a time when worshippers were praying on the most holy night of Ramazan. They were set upon and attacked in a place of peace, and for those watching this monstrosity unfold, it was somewhat reminiscent of the New Zealand mosque attack, and the belligerence with which it was carried out. Three hundred Palestinians and 21 officers were wounded as a consequence. Hamas responded by firing hundreds of rockets from Gaza into Israel, some of which struck in Tel Aviv and Ashkelon. Israel retaliated with 130 air strikes in Gaza. Over the last two days, at least 26, including nine children, and two Israelis have been killed.
When Notre Dame burned, the world wept. When George Floyd was murdered, the outcry echoed. When Al-Aqsa burned and young Palestinian men could not breathe beneath the boots of Israeli colonisers, the same world spoke of “both sides” needing to “de-escalate” violence.
A putrid stench hangs over Jerusalem. And it isn’t from the skunk water the Israelis have been firing into neighbourhoods to disperse protestors, no. It emanates from the hypocrisy which currently festers within global discourse regarding this injustice. How many more “human shields” need to die before we realise that using this appalling phrase to describe the killing of innocent children will never be justified to cover up for apartheid practices? Israel is committing terrorism to rock music, while Palestinians see their human rights vanish in a cloud of smoke, rising from the fire being set to their rightful homes. The words of Desmond Tutu ring too true: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” We cannot let the people who suffered apartheid turn around now and commit it.
(The writer is a lawyer and teacher based in Colombo, Sri Lanka. She also currently writes for The Daily Times in Pakistan and can be found on Twitter at @writergirl_11)