Latest news with #BalfourDeclaration
Scoop
8 hours ago
- Politics
- Scoop
Sumud: The Unyielding Heart Of The Palestinian Cause In Gaza
The profound and unrelenting struggles endured by Palestinians should, by any rational expectation, have irrevocably concluded the Palestinian cause. Yet, the struggle for freedom in Palestine is at its zenith. How is one to explain this? Attempts aimed at the erasure of Palestine, the Palestinian people, and their cause go back well over a century. This encompasses the historical and ongoing impacts of the Balfour Declaration and the subsequent Mandate period, which ushered in an era of extreme violence, systemic suppression, and the imposition of harsh emergency regulations. The devastating Nakba - the catastrophic destruction of the Palestinian homeland - was followed by the enactment of new emergency laws and the widespread dispersal of several Palestinian generations into the Shattat (diaspora). A relentless cycle of constant war, new occupations, and persistent ethnic cleansing has been further compounded by a pervasive lack of international action and sustained Arab solidarity, exacerbated by the presence of corrupt Palestinian elites. This litany of suffering extends to countless Israeli massacres, escalating violence, the relentless expansion of settlements, widespread destruction, and the recurring demolition of homes. The protracted Gaza siege, marked by war after war, has now culminated in the ongoing genocide. Yet, despite this comprehensive and overwhelming accumulation of adversities, the Palestinian cause not only endures but persists with an unwavering spirit. This remarkable and enduring resilience is most profoundly understood through the concept of sumud. The Indomitable Spirit of Sumud Sumud transcends mere steadfastness; it represents a profound and deeply ingrained cultural phenomenon rooted in defiance, historical consciousness, unwavering faith, spirituality, the strength of family bonds, and the cohesion of community. The language of sumud is remarkably pervasive and rich, manifesting eloquently in poetry, intricate storytelling, Quranic verses, and the compelling terminology of revolution. Words such as sumud itself, Muqawama (resistance), Hurriyya (freedom), Thawra (revolution), Hatta Akher Nuqtat Dum (to the last drop of blood), and even the very word Falasteen (Palestine) are imbued with profound and multifaceted significance. For countless children growing up in Gaza, like myself, the simple, yet powerful, act of writing the word Falasteen on sand, in every text book, or on one's own hand serves as a foundational and deeply personal experience. Therefore, any truly genuine comprehension of Palestine must be meticulously shaped by the authentic language and the lived experiences of Palestinians themselves, with particular emphasis on those residing in Gaza. This imperative necessitates a deliberate shift in focus, moving away from historical documents like the Balfour Declaration or the Nation-State Law. Instead, understanding must authentically emerge from the narratives of pivotal figures such as Izz al-Din al-Qassam, Abdul Qader al-Husseini, Akram Zeiter, and Ghassan Kanafani, extending all the way to the fighting Palestinians in Gaza, their innocent children, their courageous journalists, their dedicated doctors, and their ordinary people. Gaza: The Unyielding Heart of the Palestinian Story One might be inclined to perceive this perspective as sentimental. However, it stands as a clear articulation of a long-held conviction that Gaza occupies the indisputable core of the Palestinian story, its historical trajectory, and its future destiny. This is not an emotional plea but a profound recognition of a harsh and unyielding living reality: Gaza has borne the brunt of the most severe manifestations of Israeli occupation, apartheid, siege, war, violence, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Crucially, it is also the place where resistance has never ceased, not for a single moment. This fact alone is sufficient to establish Gaza as the most critical and undeniable component in the entire intricate history of the so-called conflict. The Israeli genocide unfolding in Gaza is not merely an act of collective punishment. Rather, it originates from a deeply distorted and chilling Israeli perception of reality: that the Palestinian people themselves, and not a specific ideology, a particular group of individuals, or a defined organization, constitute the very heart and soul of the Palestinian cause. Consequently, the perceived sole method for thoroughly decimating the resistance is through the mass killing of the people and the subsequent ethnic cleansing of the survivors. If Israel, in its twisted and profoundly criminal way, has managed to grasp this horrifying understanding, then it becomes equally imperative that we, too, fully comprehend this fundamental concept. Forging a New Understanding of Palestine Therefore, a new and transformative understanding of Palestine is not just desirable but absolutely imperative. This understanding must unequivocally center Palestinian voices that genuinely reflect the sentiments, wishes, feelings, aspirations, and the authentic popular politics of ordinary people. It is crucial that not just any Palestinian voice will suffice, nor will any narrative do. This deliberate and focused approach will also help to liberate the word sumud, and all adjacent terminology, from being dismissed as merely fleeting sentimental language, thereby elevating it to the very heart of our collective discourse. Palestinians, like all native populations engaged in a just struggle for freedom, should be unequivocally entrusted with the custodianship of their own discourse. They are not a liability to that discourse; they are not marginal actors within it; they are, in fact, the undeniable main characters. Within an astonishing 600 days, Palestinians in Gaza, largely cut off, isolated, and targeted for extermination, have managed to expose Zionism more comprehensively and effectively than all the cumulative work undertaken over the course of an entire century. This monumental achievement, too, is a direct byproduct of their profound sumud. It is now time to critically revisit our language of solidarity with Palestine, consciously liberating it from our own ideological, political, and often personal priorities, and decisively reshaping it based solely on the authentic priorities of the Palestinians themselves. (Delivered by Ramzy Baroud at the Gaza Tribunal, Sarajevo, Bosnia, May 27, 2025) - Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of six books. His latest book, co-edited with Ilan Pappé, is ' Our Vision for Liberation: Engaged Palestinian Leaders and Intellectuals Speak Out'. His other books include 'My Father was a Freedom Fighter' and 'The Last Earth'. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is
Asharq Al-Awsat
4 days ago
- Politics
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Isn't it Time for Us Arabs to Rationally Think of the Future?
When a nation's options are narrowed by dramatic developments, it is left with two choices: gloating or denial... Both affirm that this nation has resigned itself to a life on the margins of history. We Arabs currently constitute a strong majority in West Asia and North Africa. Our territories are home to some of the world's most significant natural resources; they are by most of the ancient world's seas, and are part of the most important trade and civilization routes known to humanity. After the First World War, as borders and the balance of power were shifting, ideologies shaped the equations of the next phase in the "game of nations," and it had been assumed that we would keep up with the transformations. We should have noticed, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, which had spanned most of the Arab region, from Iraq to the Algerian-Moroccan border, that new interests, circumstances, and priorities had emerged. However, neither we nor others managed to grasp these shifts in time. That is why the Second World War erupted, changing things and setting new rules for the game. As for us Arabs, we failed to process the implications of partitioning the Levant and the Nile Valley or what was happening in the Maghreb! We failed to grasp how the Balfour Declaration would change things on the ground, especially in the context of a global Cold War that divided the world into two camps. The conflict among the old European colonial powers, and later between them and the two rising giants - the United States and the Soviet Union - accelerated the Global South toward independence, and gave rise to "Third World socialism," beginning with China. Iran, for its part, underwent a remarkable transformation as Britain and Russia jockeyed for influence. In 1925, officer Reza Pahlavi overthrew the Qajar dynasty and established the Pahlavi state. He ruled until 1941, when the Russians and the British removed him because of suspicion that he had been sympathetic to Nazi Germany, replacing him with his son Mohammad. The son, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, understood the rules of the game with the major powers. He played well for a few years, before choosing to align with the United States and his difficult neighbor, Atatürk's Türkiye, during the Cold War. Despite their ancient rivalry, Türkiye shared with Pahlavi's Iran not only a commitment to secularism, but also a desire to join the West, as seen with the "Baghdad Pact." Likewise, Atatürk's Türkiye coexisted, for a while, with Zionist Israel, whose establishment fueled anti-Western sentiment in more than one Arab country. As we know, military juntas began emerging in the 1950s. The Soviet bloc backed their revolutionary policies. Thus, the rift widened, first within the Arab world itself, and second, between the Arab world and the "regional triad" that supported and was supported by the West: namely, Iran, Türkiye, and Israel. This state of affairs continued until Pahlavi's secular Iran was ousted by Khomeini's "clerical revolution", and until Atatürk's secularism in Türkiye was undermined by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who aspired to combine "caliphate rule" and Turkish nationalism. As for Israel, once defined by the Histadrut and cooperative socialism, it has become a model of racist, theocratic fascism. Currently, the Israeli-Iranian war, and Türkiye's silent, calculated role in the Fertile Crescent, seem to have caught the Arabs offguard. They find themselves powerlessly watching their region being "reassembled" before their very eyes. And today, the most that some of them - those who have conveniently forgotten the rabid belligerence of Benjamin Netanyahu - can do is gloat out of childish spite. Is cheering the army that destroyed Gaza and killed its children, merely out of spite toward Iran, not a reflection of paralysis and an utter disregard for the future? Conversely, denial has become a comfortable refuge for segments of the Iranian regime's support base, who turn a blind eye to its actions. Here, I claim that our duty is to think in terms of other - plausible this time - options. Personally, I am convinced that defeating Israel is virtually impossible: it is nothing more than a front for the United States. Until Washington is persuaded that aligning fully with Tel Aviv is not inevitable, the Israeli fascists and their allies will continue to choose America's "leaders" and drag the US into fighting their wars. Incidentally, the "marriage of convenience" between hardline Christian fundamentalists and Jewish communities was consolidated by Evangelicals like the pastor Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority movement, and extremist Jewish right-wing groups - both economically and religiously - toward the end of the Cold War amid Ronald Reagan's rise. At the time, their greatest common denominator was hostility to the Soviets and the global Left. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as Samuel Huntington observed, they were united by their hatred of "political Islam." This tactical alliance reached its peak with the emergence - or fabrication - of ISIS-like movements. Now, these movements are about to expire. Meanwhile the fundamental contradictions - theological and ethnic - between the two opposing camps of arrogant extremists, Jewish and Christian, are surfacing, with each claiming a monopoly over religious truth, virtue, and salvation. Recognizing this fact, proceeding accordingly, and examining the implications and consequences would be a thousand times more useful than indulging in the negative, foolish reactions of a bygone past that will never return!
Arab News
5 days ago
- Politics
- Arab News
Isn't it time for us Arabs to rationally think of the future?
When a nation's options are narrowed by dramatic developments, it is left with two choices: gloating or denial. Both affirm that this nation has resigned itself to a life on the margins of history. We Arabs currently constitute a strong majority in West Asia and North Africa. Our territories are home to some of the world's most significant natural resources; they are by most of the ancient world's seas and are part of the most important trade and civilization routes known to humanity. After the First World War, as borders and the balance of power were shifting, ideologies shaped the equations of the next phase in the 'game of nations,' and it had been assumed that we would keep up with the transformations. We should have noticed, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, which had spanned most of the Arab region, from Iraq to the Algerian-Moroccan border, that new interests, circumstances and priorities had emerged. However, neither we nor others managed to grasp these shifts in time. That is why the Second World War erupted, changing things and setting new rules for the game. As for us Arabs, we failed to process the implications of the partitioning of the Levant and the Nile Valley or what was happening in the Maghreb. The Arabs find themselves powerlessly watching their region being reassembled before their very eyes Eyad Abu Shakra We failed to grasp how the Balfour Declaration would change things on the ground, especially in the context of a global Cold War that divided the world into two camps. The conflict among the old European colonial powers, and later between them and the two rising giants — the US and the Soviet Union — accelerated the Global South toward independence and gave rise to Third World socialism, beginning with China. Iran, for its part, underwent a remarkable transformation as Britain and Russia jockeyed for influence. In 1925, officer Reza Pahlavi overthrew the Qajar dynasty and established the Pahlavi state. He ruled until 1941, when the Russians and the British removed him because of suspicion that he had been sympathetic to Nazi Germany, replacing him with his son Mohammed. The son, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, understood the rules of the game with the major powers. He played well for a few years, before choosing to align with the US and his difficult neighbor, Ataturk's Turkiye, during the Cold War. Despite their ancient rivalry, Turkiye shared with Pahlavi's Iran not only a commitment to secularism, but also a desire to join the West, as seen with the Baghdad Pact. Likewise, Ataturk's Turkiye coexisted, for a while, with Zionist Israel, whose establishment fueled anti-Western sentiment in more than one Arab country. As we know, military governments began emerging in the 1950s. The Soviet bloc backed their revolutionary policies. Thus, the rift widened, first within the Arab world itself and, second, between the Arab world and the regional triad that supported and was supported by the West: namely, Iran, Turkiye and Israel. This state of affairs continued until Pahlavi's secular Iran was ousted by Ayatollah Khomeini's so-called clerical revolution and until Ataturk's secularism in Turkiye was undermined by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who aspired to combine 'caliphate rule' and Turkish nationalism. As for Israel, which was once defined by the Histadrut and cooperative socialism, it has become a model of racist, theocratic fascism. Currently, the Israeli-Iranian war and Turkiye's silent, calculated role in the Fertile Crescent seem to have caught the Arabs off guard. They find themselves powerlessly watching their region being reassembled before their very eyes. And today, the most that some of them — those who have conveniently forgotten the rabid belligerence of Benjamin Netanyahu — can do is gloat out of childish spite. Is cheering the army that destroyed Gaza and killed its children merely out of spite toward Iran not a reflection of paralysis and an utter disregard for the future? Conversely, denial has become a comfortable refuge for segments of the Iranian regime's support base, who turn a blind eye to its actions. The fundamental contradictions between the two opposing camps of arrogant extremists, Jewish and Christian, are surfacing Eyad Abu Shakra Here, I claim that our duty is to think in terms of other — plausible this time — options. Personally, I am convinced that defeating Israel is virtually impossible: it is nothing more than a front for the US. Until Washington is persuaded that aligning fully with Tel Aviv is not inevitable, the Israeli fascists and their allies will continue to choose America's leaders and drag the US into fighting their wars. Incidentally, the marriage of convenience between hard-line Christian fundamentalists and Jewish communities was consolidated by evangelicals like the pastor Jerry Falwell, founder of the Moral Majority movement, and extremist Jewish right-wing groups — both economically and religiously — toward the end of the Cold War amid Ronald Reagan's rise. At the time, their greatest common denominator was hostility to the Soviets and the global left. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as Samuel Huntington observed, they were united by their hatred of political Islam. This tactical alliance reached its peak with the emergence — or fabrication — of Daesh-like movements. Now, these movements are about to expire. Meanwhile, the fundamental contradictions — theological and ethnic — between the two opposing camps of arrogant extremists, Jewish and Christian, are surfacing, with each claiming a monopoly over religious truth, virtue and salvation. Recognizing this fact, proceeding accordingly and examining the implications and consequences would be a thousand times more useful than indulging in the negative, foolish reactions of a bygone past that will never return.
Arab Times
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Arab Times
Indeed, for Arabs, it is all ‘soap'
THE Sykes-Picot Agreement was the final nail in the coffin of the Ottoman Empire. The Balfour Declaration then marked the next phase in the division of influence between Britain and France, leading to a significant increase in Jewish immigration to Palestine. Even before that fateful declaration was issued, when Jewish settlements began to be established in Palestine in 1908, Palestinian landowners were wary of this development. However, they did not actively prevent the new settlements. As events accelerated after World War I, the Arabs lacked the military power needed to halt the process of Judaization. Meanwhile, Europe provided financial support to the new settlers, who succeeded in establishing a network of settlements and forming a self-defense force. After World War II, Europe and Germany, seeking to atone for the atrocities committed by Hitler against the Jews, facilitated the increased Jewish immigration to Palestine. This historical context is crucial in countering attempts to displace Palestinians from their land, particularly in light of the Israeli Finance Minister's statement about relocating Gaza's population to a third country. For nearly two decades, several Arab countries have witnessed civil wars and internal divisions. Yet, despite this, the slogan 'Free Palestine' continues to be raised, while actions often move in the opposite direction, or as we say in Kuwaiti slang, 'praying towards the east.' Since 1948, false accusations have been leveled against the late Egyptian King Farouk, claiming his involvement in the use of defective weapons during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. He was also accused of being reactionary and of collaborating with the West and the Zionist movement. These accusations were used to justify Major Jamal Abdel Nasser's coup against the king in 1952 and the secession of Sudan from Egypt. Such claims were also exploited by power-seekers in different Arab countries. This period marked the beginning of a wave of revolutions (coups) that swept through the Arab world, starting with Iraq and Syria, followed by a failed coup attempt in Lebanon, Yemen, and Libya. In 1969, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi led a coup that ousted King Idris Al-Senussi in Libya. I still remember the chants of the demonstrators in Tripoli that day, shouting, 'The Devil is better than Idris.' It is said that when King Idris Al- Senussi heard those chants, he prayed to God that Libya be ruled by the Devil. We all know the history of Gaddafi after the success of his coup and how he adopted the liberation of Palestine as his slogan. However, Gaddafi went too far in threatening Arab rulers, intervening in the Lebanese civil war, and attempting to invade Chad, instead of directing his army to liberate Palestine. In 2011, Muammar Gaddafi's regime collapsed, and he was killed in one of the most brutal ways. Following his death, militia leaders took control of various regions in Libya. Despite being a country rich in natural resources, with beautiful coastlines and fertile land, Libya has been reduced to ruins since 1969. This is similar to what the Ba'ath Party regime did in Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, who also raised the slogan of liberating Palestine. Saddam even went so far as to declare the formation of the 'Jerusalem Army.' However, instead of marching into Palestine, he invaded Kuwait. What has recently transpired in Libya, with Abdul Ghani al-Kikli, also known as 'Ghaniwa al-Kikli,' attempting to seize control of the country's resources and loot the central bank, mirrors what gangs in Somalia and Iraq have done. It has become evident that the slogan of liberating Palestine is often nothing more than a justification or pretext for theft and the illegal assumption of power. Even Palestinian factions, who are supposed to be the most dedicated to their cause, are not exempt from this behavior. This is why the proverb 'It is all soap to the Arabs,' which has been a hallmark of Arab culture since the year 800, when Ibn Khaldun referenced it in his book 'Ibn Khaldun and the Arabs', seems especially relevant today. What is happening in the Middle East is the result of a long history of division and discord, often at the expense of peoples and nations. In the end, as the saying goes, for Arabs, it is all 'soap'.
Arab News
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Franco-British recognition could usher in a new era for Palestine
This should have happened decades ago. It may still not happen. It should be a plain and simple, uncontroversial decision. It is not. Yet the words of President Emmanuel Macron of France have triggered a scintilla of hope that a major power will join the 147 states to have recognized the state of Palestine. 'We must move toward recognition and we will do so in the coming months,' Macron said this month. But France must not be an isolated actor in this. It cannot be a Macron-only declaration. Is it too much to think that others might join him? Above all, one power — the UK — should follow Macron's lead and give new force to a renewed Entente Cordiale. Imagine a Franco-British recognition of Palestine. Symbolically, it would be huge. Marcon and Prime Minister Keir Starmer standing together — the leaders of the two major European colonial states, the ones that so brutally and imperially carved up the Middle East more than a century ago. The Sykes-Picot powers — with one, Britain, also being the author of the infamous Balfour Declaration — could start to remedy a small part of the damage that was perpetrated in cigar-filled rooms all those years ago. It would leave the US as the only permanent member of the UN Security Council not to recognize the state of Palestine. It would encourage the remaining European and other powers to join in. How long, for example, would Germany, Italy and the Netherlands want to be isolated? Could Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand follow suit? Momentum would be crucial. The Sykes-Picot powers could start to remedy a small part of the damage that was perpetrated all those years ago Chris Doyle The text of any recognition would matter. It should recognize Palestine on the 1967 lines with immediate effect. No doubt they would state that, if Palestine and Israel were to agree new borders, then this would be altered accordingly. One issue would be embassies. The Palestinian leadership would want an embassy in Jerusalem, just as Israel wants these states to shift their diplomatic presence from Tel Aviv to the city. Perhaps, given the situation, embassies will be set up temporarily in Ramallah while keeping consulates in Jerusalem. The long-term European political position has always been not to recognize any state's sovereignty over any part of the city. None of this is to suggest at all that this would resolve the conflict or bring the genocide and system of apartheid to an end. Recognition should not even be the priority, which right now must be to end the complete siege of Gaza that was imposed more than 50 days ago and to bring an end to the bombing frenzy the Israeli forces carry out every single day. Recognition will mean little if those processes are not terminated with immediate effect. France says that recognition will be conditional on the release of hostages in Gaza and Hamas no longer being in charge of the Strip. But all this does is give Hamas additional motivation not to adhere to either demand, as it opposes a two-state solution. But while dealing with the ongoing emergency, the medium to long-term outlook still matters. This is why Macron's summit with Saudi Arabia in June is so important. The visit of French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot to Saudi Arabia last week brought this into sharp focus. The pre-summit diplomacy and legwork is typically even more vital than the event itself. If external parties are serious about a solution, then this reinforces their preferred option: the two-state solution. Apart from the US, pretty much every state has backed this template to resolve the conflict, but too many have so far only recognized one state — Israel. If external parties are serious about a solution, then this reinforces their preferred option: the two-state solution Chris Doyle Many Palestinians no longer see the two-state solution as viable given the massive illegal Israeli colonial settlement enterprise. So, recognition needs to not rule out any consideration of other long-term solutions, including a one-state option, a federal or a binational state, but it would at least allow a state of Palestine to negotiate as a state and be respected as such. Israel will expect further recognition of its statehood from regional powers. But it should have to end its occupation and accept a state of Palestine. That is the bare minimum, essentially the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002: a full withdrawal in return for a full peace. Fresh recognitions of Palestine serve to strengthen international backing for the Palestinian right to self-determination and confirm that, as a people, they have national rights. It would end the nauseating disputes as to whether Palestine should be treated as a state in international bodies. Anti-Palestinian groups still argue, with no merit, that such agencies cannot have jurisdiction as Palestine is not a state. Many might see France and Britain as hangovers from a bygone era. Yet such a joint move, right now, would show that these two powers still retain some weight in international affairs. They can shift trends in the right direction, not least when the US is more of an obstacle than a facilitator. But if Europe wishes to be taken seriously, this should be a full Europe-wide recognition. The continent can show it is just as prepared to adapt its position on the Middle East as it is on Russia-Ukraine.
