The only positive development to come out of the upcoming Palestinian attempt at a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) is that it’s revealing the true desires of pro-Palestinian activists.
As Harriet Sherwood reported recently – citing a a seven-page legal opinion by Guy Goodwin-Gill, a professor of international law at Oxford – many in the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian community are voicing their concerns that UDI would be a tragic mistake in that it, by accepting a two-state solution, would disenfranchise millions of Palestinians living outside of the Palestinian Territories, deny them the “right of return” (to Israel).
Thus, such a codification of the end the I-P conflict would, they fear, legitimize Israel as the Jewish state.
Most recently, CiF provided a platform to Medhi Hasan, senior editor at the New Statesman, in “A State of Palestine would backfire on its own people“, who essentially echoes the same narrative.
Hasan, citing Goodwin-Gill’s opinion, complains that the “The majority of the world’s nine million or so Palestinians live outside the West Bank and Gaza…risk risk losing their entitlement to equal representation…and…their ability to vocalise their views, to participate in matters of national governance… and to exercise the right of return”. Hasan makes no attempt to argue why Palestinians living in Jordan, Lebanon, or Syria – upon the creation of a Palestinian state – wouldn’t be either be encouraged to emigrate to Palestine or finally be granted full citizenship in the countries where many of them have been residing for generations.
Hasan actually dismisses the resettlement of “diaspora” Palestinians to the new Palestinian state, by characterizing a nascent Palestine as “a state which most Palestinian refugees would have little or no connection to”, and predictably fails to similarly note that most Palestinians living abroad have “little or no connection” to Israel.
While the rest of Hasan’s piece is worth reading to understand the level of malice he has towards the Jewish state – such as the callous euphemism he uses to characterize Palestinian terrorists held in Israeli jails: “detainees” – it’s important to note the big picture implicit in what he’s saying.
Hasan and his political fellow travelers, by rejecting the possibility of a two-state solution which would deny “nine million” Palestinians living abroad the “right of return” – a right, if exercised, which would mean the end of the Jewish state – are saying in effect that the fight against Israel will never end.
Hasan’s column demonstrates the increasing radicalization of pro-Palestinian activists, whose demands no longer even pretend to include two states for two peoples.
CiF’s increasing tendency to legitimize such voices demonstrates that opposition to peace with Israel, or recognition the rights of a Jewish state under any terms, is more than merely acceptable liberal opinion within Guardian Left circles.
Such enmity and intransigence towards the state of the Jewish people has become, for the Guardian, not only inoffensive, but practically a banality.
- Is it possible to “understand” Ben White’s antisemitism? CiF again sanctions opposition to peace with Israel (cifwatch.com)
- +972 and a revealing Twitter exchange between CiF Watch and a radical left Israeli Jew (cifwatch.com)
- Harriet Sherwood inadvertently shows that a Palestinian state wouldn’t end the conflict (cifwatch.com)
- Report documents Guardian’s consistent promotion of commentators who reject Israel’s right to exist (cifwatch.com)