|
|
|
Demands for Second Nakba: 55 years
after the bombing of King David Hotel
by Daud Abdullah
It was by far the most heinous
terrorist act of its time. More than 88 people perished in the rubble of
the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22 July 1946. Most were members of
the Palestine British Administration. The mastermind of the
attack–code-named “Operation Malonchik”–was a certain Polish immigrant,
Menachem Begin. Unlike Timothy McVeigh–bomber of the U.S. federal building
in Oklahoma City in 1995–Begin was neither apprehended nor executed. He
lived not only to gloat over the crime in his autobiography, but also to
be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize and enjoy international acclaim.
Fifty-five years after the
bombing of the King David Hotel, Israeli inheritors of the Begin legacy
continue their destruction of Palestinian property in Jerusalem and
elsewhere with the same impunity and callousness. CIA chief George Tenet
chief needed no CNN satellite coverage to witness Israeli oppression in
its most naked form. He was present in the Holy City when bulldozers were
sent in to destroy the home of two Palestinian brothers, Farikh and Samikh
Kharbawi, because they had no “licence” to build in the city over which
the Jewish State has no sovereign rights.
Given the failure of his
100-day plan to crush the Aqsa Intifada, Israeli settlers in the occupied
Palestinian territories are agitating for more than the destruction of
Palestinian homes. To the vast majority of them, not even the expulsion of
Chairman Arafat and his National Authority would suffice at this stage.
They demand that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon bring about, by whatever
means necessary, another Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe). Despite his
authorization of 15 new settlements in less than six months while in
office, Sharon is fast running out of favour with the settlers. The
acrimonious end to his honeymoon with the Israeli electorate demonstrates
not just the failure of his 100-day project; it reflects, in historical
terms, the failure of an entire life’s work that began before the creation
of Israel–a life dedicated to the subjugation and extinction of the
Palestinian people.
Courting the
extremists
Ariel Sharon’s courtship of
the extremist elements in Israeli society is not a marriage of political
convenience. Schooled in the Revisionist Zionist ethos of Ze’ev Jabotinsky
and his successor Menachem Begin, Sharon remained a loyal partner in the
pursuit of absurd fantasies like global domination based on belief in the
“chosen people” dogma. As he was taught in the 1940s, Sharon still
believes in the ideology that seeks maximal nationalist demands, which
proclaims that Jewish willpower could triumph over any obstacle and is
forever entitled to the goodwill of the international community.
Accordingly, then-Prime Minister Begin and then-Minister of Defense Sharon
launched the 1982 war of aggression against Lebanon and authorized the
massacre of Palestinian refugees, in order to avoid withdrawing from the
West Bank and Gaza Strip as stipulated in the Camp David Accords.
Whereas in the past the
Israeli leadership was prepared to justify its military adventures under
the guise of fighting the terrorist threat, today they are forced, albeit
reluctantly, to admit that the real danger is not terrorism but in the
demographic composition of the land they stole. Despite his promise to
resettle all Jews in the Diaspora in “Eretz Israel” by the year 2020,
Sharon knows better than most that the once unlimited reservoir of
immigrants has all but dried up. While more and more Jews are wary to
migrate to a land that is neither at peace with itself nor its neighbours,
an even greater number are trickling out to countries that offer greater
security, stability and affluence.
Like his mentor Begin, Sharon
has no intention of recognizing an independent Palestinian State in the
West Bank and Gaza with Jerusalem as its capital. Like the former, he also
believes that the West Bank and Gaza should remain permanently “frozen” in
a state of self-autonomy under Israeli tutelage. In a real sense though,
the Israelis are caught between a rock and a hard place. They don’t want
to annex the West Bank and Gaza because this would only hasten the process
by which Israel becomes a Jewish State with an Arab majority. And, on the
other hand, they don’t want to recognize Palestinian independence for fear
of setting in motion an irredentist movement. After all, recognition of a
Palestinian State would be tantamount to recognition of their ownership of
the land. It goes without saying, therefore, that if Israel is forced to
relinquish the West Bank and Gaza, it can also do the same for other
territory acquired by force. Meanwhile, the Palestinians have affirmed
through this Intifada that their struggle is not limited to dismantling
illegal Jewish settlements but, moreover, for the attainment of
independence and full sovereign rights over their land, territorial
waters, air space, natural resources and geographic borders.
The dilemma before the Israeli
leadership for the present centres around how much longer can it continue
to imprison and repress three million Palestinians who are not citizens of
the Jewish State. Even though this policy apparently enjoys the support of
the Israeli electorate and the United States of America, it would always
remain an illegal one. Consequently, no Palestinian leadership can
transform by the stroke of a pen Israel’s de facto status into a de jure
one. To the same degree, no Israeli government can transmute the national
struggle of the Palestinian “people” into a “community” campaign for civil
liberties.
On the whole there is a
growing feeling within Israeli society that it squandered the opportunity
presented in 1967, that is, it should have pressed for a more sweeping
expulsion of Palestinians at the time. According to that logic, the world
order upholds the principle that ownership of territories rests with those
who inhabit it. Hence, just as they expelled 805,000 Palestinians in 1948
to make a claim for ownership, similarly they aspire to “transfer” (expel)
more today in order to reinforce their claim to the West Bank and Gaza.
As he continues to court his
extremist constituency, Israel’s Prime Minister is increasingly challenged
to enact the racist ideas popularized by Meir Kahane (founder of the
extremist Kach party). That if it is possible for Israel to hold on to
settlements for three decades despite Arab and international opposition,
then it could also expel the Palestinians and expect no resistance. Kahane
warned in an interview conducted by Mergui and Simonnot that once the
Arabs become a majority, as all the demographic trends suggest, they would
no longer accept living in a country called a Jewish State with a Law of
Return that applies to Jews only. Hence, this is why he advocated that
they should be moved out now.
The current blockade and siege
of the West Bank is Ariel Sharon’s response to this and similar
propositions. By making life intolerable for the Palestinians, he hopes
they would be forced to move out. By destroying their agriculture to the
tune of $288 million in the eight months since September 2000, he expects
that desperation and battle fatigue will set in. By the destruction of
homes, schools, hospitals and factories, he aims to provoke a mass exodus.
More ominously, he seeks through the sustained attacks upon the PA’s
infrastructure and security apparatus to force an exit similar to the PLO
withdrawal from Beirut in 1982.
The Palestinian leadership and
people are well aware of the plan. In Khan Younis refugee camp, which was
erected in 1949 after the first Nakba, Palestinians are today pitching
tents over the rubble of the homes destroyed by the Israeli army. By
building tents over their demolished homes, they have delivered an
unmistakable message to the Occupying Power and its supporters: they have
no intention of going anywhere. They have nowhere to go. In Jordan, the
authorities have introduced new measures aimed at restricting the entry of
Palestinians from the occupied territories. Despite claims by the
Jordanian authorities that their move was not motivated by fear of a mass
“transfer”, their move comes against the background of growing calls for
expulsion from the Israeli settlers and government officials. That being
the case, time appears to be fast running out for the Prime Minister to
deliver on his election pledge of peace and security. Any further delay is
almost certain to result in his replacement by Benyamin Netanyahu as
leader of the Likud party when it holds its election later this year.
A natural end
When Menachem Begin and his
co-conspirators blew up the King David Hotel 55 years ago, the world was
given a practical lesson about the nature of Zionism. Immediately after
the attack by the beast it nurtured, Britain issued a White Paper on 24
July 1946 identifying the Hagana, Palmach and Irgun as terrorist groups.
The reaction in Washington was, however, different. At the time it was not
yet fashionable for the State Department to keep a blacklist of terrorist
organizations. So, it was business as usual with the Zionists. In the
aftermath, Britain was betrayed and Palestine was emptied of most of its
population to allow the creation of the Jewish State. Despite unwavering
support from the United States, Israel has never since enjoyed a moment’s
joy of peace or security. And yet it was not for want of money or weapons
because the Jewish State has received between 1949 and October 1999 some
$91.8 billion from the United States without any accountability. The
insecurity and fear that has crippled Israel over the last nine months is,
therefore, the natural result of its uninterrupted reign of terror that
started long before the bombing of the King David Hotel.
Quite remarkably, there was
never any contrition from the Jewish State. Instead of acknowledging the
historic wrong done to the Palestinians, Israel now claims from the
international community the right to inflict more pain upon its victims.
Encouraged by American largesse and protection, it continues to entertain
delusions of military grandeur in a manner reminiscent of Fascist Italy
and Nazi Germany. Both totalitarian systems by their tyranny and injustice
sowed the seeds of their destruction. By its own excesses and arrogance
Israel has similarly entered the mode of self-destruction.
This process may be hastened
not only by events in Palestine but changes abroad. With the decline of
American influence and its growing international isolation, Israel would,
by extension, find itself with increasingly less room for maneuvering. Any
attempt to “transfer” Palestinians from the occupied territories would
meet with the strongest opposition by freedom-loving governments and
peoples everywhere. Thus, on a personal level Ariel Sharon need not be
tempted, for this would surely be his last military adventure before his
belated arraignment at an international war tribunal.
The author is a
researcher at the Palestinian Return
Center, London, and editor of its
Return Review.
Source:
by courtesy & © 2001 The Palestine Times & Daud Abdullah
by the same author:
|
|
|
