Our children have become the daily victims of Israeli target practice. Our homes have become the testing fields for daily Israeli widespread bombardment. Our survival has become a gamble played on Israeli roulette tables. Our lives, if spared, have become witnesses to the most grotesque violations of simple human rights unprecedented in the history of the civilized world. Our independence has become a concept of luxury that we are not allowed to reflect upon except in movie theatres that depict such a concept for other lucky people living on this planet. Yet the apathy on the part of the Arab leadership to such deep human tragedy goes amazingly unadulterated, as if such traumas were taking place on another planet while its tragedies are being projected in the world of fantasy and has no relation whatsoever to the miserable status quo.
Arab summit conferences have become a redundant practice in the artful field of confusing the masses, as well as a source of general ridicule throughout the world. Is there someone in the Arab world who would not have the “uncanny” ability to predict with full confidence the outcome of such conferences? The statement, “We protest and condemn the Israeli atrocities against our brothers in Palestine (in Arabic, Nashgub wa nastankir)” has been the unchangeable outcome of all the Arab summit conferences. If we add an adverb to the word “condemn,” something like “we strongly condemn,” you can be sure that many delegates would walk out as such a conference would be viewed as a meeting place of “extremism”! Worse yet, any financial support given to the victims of Israeli atrocities would not exceed the lip service for public consumption without any serious intention of implementation. How many of these leaders can claim that they were true representatives of their people? How many of them in reality would allow public sentiment to be expressed in their own countries? How many of them, in the name of “democracy,” have not enacted new laws forbidding the public to organize any peaceful demonstrations in support of the Palestinian struggle? The message here, of course, is to leave the decisions to us, the leaders, even though we will not do anything to seriously help the victims of Israeli crimes in Palestine. Over 300 million Arabs from the Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean are carrying on with their normal business while their brothers and sisters are being massacred everyday by the Israeli war machine. The conspicuous Israeli motive for their cruel and unrelenting assault on the Palestinian homes and communities has been to humiliate the Palestinians into total surrender. They are to kneel down and accept the degrading Israeli conditions in exchange for their survival. They have to finally relinquish over 90% of Palestine to the Israeli colonialists. They have to let go of their rights in Jerusalem. They have to forget about the refugees’ rights of return. They have to accept a dissected State, which is nothing more than a collection of ghettos, while their freedom of movement would be left at the mercy of Israeli checkpoints. They have to forget about independence and sovereignty and accept the peace of the prison. If they reject such humiliation, then they have to be subjected to all kinds of cruel atrocities until they succumb to the unreasonable Israeli demands.
Then we add to the picture the United Nations with its vision and the Saudis with their initiative-a process that is ill timed and that contains serious deviations from the goals of the intifada and that would lead to the mitigation of the Palestinian rights.
A vision usually precedes the formulation of a final concept, which also sets the framework for a final deliberation, and if this sequence emerges from the UN, then a vision comes as a first step toward a final resolution. So the UN vision for a Palestinian State assumes the beginning of a long process that should lead to a final UN resolution. Therefore, if a resolution already exists with regard to the Palestinian State, then such a vision could only mean that previous resolutions are not valid anymore and should be replaced by the so-called new “vision”. Such analysis would inevitably lead to the travesty that UN resolutions that have not been implemented within the proper time should be deleted and are no longer valid. If we apply this logic to the UN partition resolution 181, we have to come to the erroneous conclusion that such a resolution has no place in international legalities. Of course, the conclusion is just as naéve as much as those who are propagating the new UN vision. It all pours into a new wave of “pragmatic” ideas that define realism as the course to be followed that would cater to Zionist goals and objectives. If Israel does not accept international legalities as embodied in UN resolutions 181 and 194, then pragmatism demands that the world change its principles and compromise its existing resolutions in order to accept the dictates of Israel. How can the UN deliberate on an issue that has already been acted on previously, and in a manner that compromises its own passed resolutions? This is the apex of parody and chaotic approaches by the UN, which undermines its authority and esteem.
Similarly, the Saudi initiative is not really a new approach to the existing problem as much as it mitigates the strength of the previous and often-repeated positions that conformed to international laws. It’s 242 minus the refugees; it’s a call for “peace” without 194 and the right of return. How and in what manner do the sponsors of these initiatives or visions dream of achieving peace without resolving the issues that represent the core of the conflict, namely the refugee problem? How can peace be reached when the hurdles that stand in the path of peace remain unresolved? The dangerous ramifications of these visions or initiatives are that they would strengthen Israeli intransigence and its committed, uncompromising positions that would lead to longer future conflicts since the core of the problems remain unresolved.
If the UN is serious about solving the Palestinian-Israeli problems, it should insist on implementing its own resolutions, which represent the approval of the world communities on previous deliberations. If the Saudi government is contemplating real peace and justice for the legitimate Palestinian cause, it should do its utmost to support the intifada not only morally, but also concretely by sending financial and military aid to the Palestinian fighters. Israel has taught us one lesson, and one lesson only: that justice for the Palestinian refugees cannot be achieved through negotiations with an enemy whose objectives represent the negation of justice for our people. It seems that the UN and those who are advocating the mitigation of our rights have never learned the lessons of history, which has proven time after time that the determined masses in seeking justice and independence are much stronger than all the military might of the world.