The Palestinian right of return is not for the US, Israel, or Israel’s supporters, to bargain away
by Nima Shirazi*
Who “everyone” is was never fully addressed by Kulick or his anti-BDS co-panelist, Kathleen Peratis, who stated during her presentation that the Palestinian Authority would “settle” for relinquishing the right of return. What both Peratis and Kulick, who also referred repeatedly to the possible concessions to be made by Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad, failed to either point out or understand is that neither Abbas nor Fayyad have any popular political mandate from the Palestinian people. Whereas both Rebecca Vilkomerson and Hannah Mermelstein spoke of the BDS movement as a non-violent consensus of Palestinian civil society, supported by over 170 Palestinian organizations and encompassing not only the aspirations of Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, but also Palestinian citizens of Israel and those in the Diaspora, Peratis and Kulick held firm to the idea floated by the United States and Israel that Abbas and Fayyad somehow actually speak on behalf of the Palestinian people as a whole and can somehow legally and officially bargain away their inalienable human rights and their rights as enshrined in international law.
Furthermore, the right of return is not a bargaining chip to be bartered away by the US-approved Palestinian leadership. It is affirmed repeatedly in international law, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 13.2) to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (Articles 44, 46, and 49) and is deemed an inalienable and individual right meaning that it is impossible for any governing or official body to abrogate or deny this right on behalf of an entire people. As the mere act of “expulsion” is illegal, the right to return after a forced displacement is self-evident.
The 1948 UN General Resolution 194 specifically applies the right of return to the Palestinian refugees. Paragraph 11 states “that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”
That Israel exists is beyond doubt. That a community of European settler-colonialists had a legal mandate from the international community to establish an ethnocratic state on land inhabited by other people, however, is not. That Israel can only exist as a discriminatory state that privileges its Jewish citizens should be evidence enough that the concept of what Israel “is” should not only be reevaluated, but also redefined.
*Nima Shirazi is a political commentator from New York City. His analysis of United States policy and Middle East issues, particularly with reference to current events in Iran, Israel, and Palestine, can also be found in numerous other online and print publications, as well as his own website, WideAsleepInAmerica.com.
Tweets that mention EVERYBODY SEEMS TO HAVE A SAY IN PALESTINIANS RIGHT OF RETURN, EXCEPT PALESTINIANS « Desertpeace -- Topsy.com said,
November 26, 2010 at 11:32
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Pascal Uccelli, Kelly. Kelly said: EVERYBODY SEEMS TO HAVE A SAY IN PALESTINIANS RIGHT OF RETURN, EXCEPT PALESTINIANS: Image ‘Cop… http://bit.ly/hjq3gL #flotilla #israel […]
Tony said,
November 26, 2010 at 17:23
Just love the cartoon of Bibi Nosferatu.
al thuraya said,
November 26, 2010 at 21:02
my love Palestine we have never forgotten you and we will be back some day because we have that right ^^,