twitter twitter  twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter twitter  twitter twitter 



20170213 2 21831272 18864456

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (C), Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah (7th L) and Palestinian chief negotiator, Saab Erikat (6th R) meet with the executive board members of Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in Ramallah, West Bank on February 13, 2017

By Ramona Wadi

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas gave a speech to the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) this week which provided another example of inflated rhetoric which serves to derail any possibility of liberation. At a time when the two-state imposition is being refuted collectively, Abbas is distancing himself from collective Palestinian expression and aligning himself permanently with colonial intent through generalised statements which are void of meticulous discernment.

His speech was published in full by the Palestine Liberation (oh, what irony) Organisation Negotiations Affairs Department. It was another attempt to marginalise Palestine by placing higher value upon international institutions which have, in reality, served to undermine the anti-colonial struggle.

“Palestine today is a fact and with deep roots within the international community,” proclaimed Abbas, who may have been referring to the trickle of symbolic recognition, from flags outside the UN headquarters to state recognition and non-binding resolutions. However, his entire speech within the context of “fact” eliminates the importance of Palestinian history and memory in favour of action which is dependent upon legislation drafted primarily to safeguard the echelons of power, after which the same power determines eligibility with regard to human rights.

Referring to “fact” also loses effectiveness due to the gap between the Palestinian people and the internationally-recognised leadership which has failed to articulate even a sliver of Palestinian demands away from international impositions. The PA has subjugated Palestinians into a unique and derogatory role. For decades, it has been incumbent upon Palestinians to “prove” to international institutions their disposition towards ambiguous concepts such as “peace”, which has resulted in further demands upon the colonised population in order to appease — and even protect — the coloniser. In this context, Abbas’ demand “for the establishment of an international protection system for the Palestinian people, which will put an end to Israeli violations of Palestinian basic rights” is unfeasible. This is the man, after all, who views PA security collaboration with Israel as “sacred”.

In the same vein, the PA leader’s declaration regarding “our readiness and willingness to cooperate with all countries, including the US Administration of President Trump, toward the achievement of peace on the basis of international law and international resolutions” is proof of how Palestinians are tethered to obsolete paradigms, despite their objections. Like the international community, Abbas continues to avail himself of opportunities to limit the applicability of international law when it comes to Palestine, thus negating other legitimate options including resistance, which the two-state illusion prohibits for the sake of safeguarding Israel’s colonial expansion.

Similarly, Abbas’ warnings to the international community to avoid “steps that contribute to strengthening the Israeli occupation of the State of Palestine” are also ineffective. This is not a leadership that is speaking on behalf of the people but an entity complicit in sustaining colonialism and military occupation. In particular, demands for a “just and permanent solution”, while desired, are rendered irrelevant due to the entities involved in this hypothesis.

The network of international institutions is detrimental, not favourable, to Palestine, precisely due to the duality of available platforms and agendas. Hence, the two-state illusion takes precedence over Palestinian demands as it satisfies the agenda of international institutions while ensuring that Palestine remains an agenda item, instead of a territory and people with legitimate rights for the decolonisation of their land. Rather than exhibiting willingness to “cooperate” with anyone, it is about time that the Palestinian leadership turned inwards to enhance Palestinian visibility and demands; time, indeed, to serve the Palestinian people rather than the international community.

(Source / 04.03.2017)

Tags: #ICC4Israel

Video Service

Video of the Week: Recent Israel History Miko Peled

Transcription made from The Miko's Speeches

This is a beautiful church so once again thank you to the pastor for allowing us to use this is really beautiful and thank you all for being here tonight and and for caring enough to take the time and listen and participate and be active I always begin my remarks with a disclaimer and that disclaimer is this if anybody here came hoping to hear a balanced presentation then they're going to be sorely disappointed I say this because a lot of things that you're about to hear tonight are difficult to hear and also because I don't believe that a balanced presentation on this topic is possible anybody that cares enough to speak about this probably has a very strong opinion one way or the other almost everybody has feelings and strong emotions on this issue one way or the other for me it's deeply personal and the issue itself is not a balanced issue there is no balance in this issue so therefore I say this because there cannot be a balanced presentation on this and I think if anybody claims that their presentation is balanced they're either misleading themselves or the misleading of their audience this whole issue of Israel and Palestine is covered in so much myth and there's so much there's so much double standard when people talk about this issue and I'll give you two examples

Don't know if you heard Bibi Netanyahu speech at the United Nations I heard it not live but after he actually delivered it and he began and he began it with probably the two most striking examples of myth and double standard and he began by talking about the right of return of the Jews to their ancient homeland and of course the Jews that returned so-called returned to their homeland were not exactly the the same Jews who were expelled from their homeland right because these were expelled a couple of thousand years before that these were not their descendants either because they this is business has been a very long time so these are people the people that actually came back so to speak are people that claim some kind of a heritage some kind of a connection a relationship to the ancient Hebrews and they claimed that they had the right to return to their homeland and this was this is what Zionism was about and this is expected this was you know accepted by the world as the right they had the right to return now if we talk about the right of return of one nation you'd expect that there would be if we accept it as a principle than

Read More>>>>>>>>

Boycott Israeli diamond

First Israeli Troops Shot a Palestinian Armed With a Chunk of Metal. Then, They Beat Him to Death



Read more ...

Video: Everyday Israelis express support for genocide



Read more ...

The Story Behind Ahed Tamimi's Slap Her Cousin's Head Shattered by Israeli Soldier's Bullet



Read more ...