100
Years of Shame: Annexation of Palestine Began in San Remo
One hundred years ago,
representatives from a few powerful countries convened at San Remo, a sleepy
town on the Italian Riviera. Together, they sealed the fate of the massive
territories confiscated from the Ottoman Empire following its defeat in World
War I.
It was on April 25, 1920,
that the San Remo Conference Resolution was passed by the post-World War
I Allied Supreme Council. Western Mandates were established over Palestine,
Syria and "Mesopotamia" – Iraq. The latter two were theoretically
designated for provisional independence, while Palestine was granted to the
Zionist movement to establish a Jewish homeland there.
"The Mandatory will be
responsible for putting into effect the (Balfour) declaration originally made
on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied
Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the
Jewish people," the Resolution read.
The Resolution gave greater
international recognition to Britain’s unilateral decision, three years earlier, to
grant Palestine to the Zionist Federation for the purpose of establishing a
Jewish homeland, in exchange for Zionist support of Britain during the Great War.
And, like Britain’s Balfour
Declaration, a cursory mention was made of the unfortunate inhabitants of
Palestine, whose historic homeland was being unfairly confiscated and handed
over to colonial settlers.
The establishment of that
Jewish State, according to San Remo, hinged on some vague "understanding" that "nothing
shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing
non-Jewish communities in Palestine."
The above addition merely
served as a poor attempt at appearing politically balanced, while in reality no
enforcement mechanism was ever put in place to ensure that the
"understanding" was ever respected or implemented.
In fact, one could argue
that the West’s long engagement in the question of Israel and Palestine has
followed the same San Remo prototype: where the Zionist movement (and
eventually Israel) is granted its political objectives based on unenforceable
conditions that are never respected or implemented.
Notice how the vast
majority of United Nations Resolution pertaining to Palestinian rights are
historically passed by the General Assembly, not by the Security Council, where
the US is one of five veto-wielding powers, always ready to strike down any
attempt at enforcing international law.
It is this historical
dichotomy that led to the current political deadlock.
Palestinian leaderships,
one after the other, have miserably failed at changing the stifling paradigm.
Decades before the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, countless
delegations, comprised those claiming to represent the Palestinian people,
traveled to Europe, appealing to one government or another, pleading the
Palestinian case and demanding fairness.
What has changed since
then?
On February 20, the Donald
Trump administration issued its own version of
the Balfour Declaration termed the "Deal of the Century".
The American decision
which, again, flouted international law,
paves the way for further Israeli colonial annexations of occupied Palestine.
It brazenly threatens Palestinians that, if they do not cooperate, they will be
punished severely. In fact, they already have been, when Washington cut all funding to the
Palestinian Authority and to international institutions that provide critical
aid to the Palestinians.
Like in the San Remo
Conference, the Balfour Declaration, and numerous other documents, Israel was asked, ever so politely but
without any plans to enforce such demands, to grant Palestinians some symbolic
gestures of freedom and independence.
Some may argue, and rightly
so, that the "Deal of the Century" and the San Remo Conference
Resolution is not identical in the sense that Trump’s decision was a
unilateral one, while San Remo was the outcome of political consensus among
various countries – Britain, France, Italy, and others.
True, but two important
points must be taken into account: firstly, the Balfour Declaration was also a
unilateral decision. It took Britain’s allies three years to embrace and
validate the illegal decision made by London to grant Palestine to the
Zionists. The question now is, how long will it take for Europe to claim the
"Deal of the Century" as its own?
Secondly, the spirit of all
of these declarations, promises, resolutions, and "deals" is the
same, where superpowers decide by virtue of their own massive influence to
rearrange the historical rights of nations. In some way, the colonialism of old
has never truly died.
The Palestinian Authority,
like previous Palestinian leaderships, is presented with the proverbial carrot
and stick. Last March, US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared
Kushner told Palestinians that if
they did not return to the (nonexistent) negotiations with Israel, the US would
support Israel’s annexation of the West Bank.
For nearly three decades
now and, certainly, since the signing of the Oslo Accords in September 1993,
the PA has chosen the carrot. Now that the US has decided to change the rules
of the game altogether, Mahmoud Abbas’ Authority is facing its most serious
existential threat yet: bowing down to Kushner or insisting on returning to a
dead political paradigm that was constructed, then abandoned, by Washington.
The crisis within the
Palestinian leadership is met with utter clarity on the part of Israel. The new
Israeli coalition government, consisting of previous rivals Israeli Prime
Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz have tentatively agreed that annexing large
parts of the West Bank and the Jordan Valley is just a matter of time. They are
merely waiting for the American nod.
They are unlikely to wait
for long, as Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, said on April 22 that
annexing Palestinian territories is "an Israeli decision."
Frankly, it matters little.
The 21st century Balfour Declaration has already been made; it is only a matter
of making it the new uncontested reality.
Perhaps, it is time for the
Palestinian leadership to understand that groveling at the feet of those who have
inherited the San Remo Resolution, constructing and sustaining colonial Israel,
is never and has never been the answer.
Perhaps, it is time for
some serious rethink.
Ramzy Baroud is a
journalist, author, and editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five
books. His latest is These Chains Will Be
Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons (Clarity Press,
Atlanta). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for
Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim University (IZU). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario