|
FAV Board's Comments on
Dr. Masad Arbid's Piece:
==========================================
It is in the spirit of dialogue between people in the same camp that the
board of the Free Arab Voice would like to advance the following remarks on
the piece: THE RIGHTS OF PALESTINIAN REFUGEES BETWEEN CHARITY AND SURRENDER
/A Critique of the ADC booklet, by Dr. Masad Arbid.
Let us start at the basics, then it might become easier to pinpoint where we
agree or disagree. In short, we believe that the right of return issue can
be framed in the following terms:
1) refugees are the result of the OCCUPATION of Palestine. Any attempt to
address the issue of refugees outside the context of the Zionist occupation
of Palestine renders it into a heap of technical and humanistic details
about where to settle refugees, how much to compensate them, and how many to
accept of them back into "Israel" if any. That much you have been clear
about in the onset of your piece.
2)it follows from point one above that any occupation can only be treated
with liberation, thus there is no right of return without liberation.
Otherwise, the issue of refugees becomes the issue of how to get minority
rights for Palestinians on their own land within the framework of an
allegedly non-racist "israel".
3)"Israel" was created by western colonialism to form an alien demographic
barrier (in the words of Palmerston) to bloc Egyptian regional influence
from spreading east, and to block other Arab regional influences from
spreading to Egypt and North Africa (regardless of who holds power, be they
dictators or true representatives of the Arab people). Thus, neither
"Israel" nor western colonialism are going to be foolish enough to allow the
right of return, which if realized, could in one stroke dilute the
base/demographic barrier which they have been building up for over a century
now. But this is not the point here. The point is that the right of
return, as much as it may be linked to liberation, is even more inextricably
linked to the Arab identity of Palestine.
Corollary to point three: the right of return emanates not from any
resolutions of 'international legitimacy', but from the Arab identity of
Palestine. This means the LAND of Palestine remains the property of the
Arabs even if all Palestinians vanished from the face of the earth, just
like the Crusaders ruled Palestine for about two hundred years without that
ever affecting the Arab claim to that land.
From all of the above, we can also find the link between the right of return
and the Arab-Zionist conflict, i.e, the struggle of the Arab people and the
people of the Third World against imperialism and Zionism.
Veering away from any of the points above is bound to open us to compromises
on principle despite our best intentions.
Now let's proceed with the discussion of your article:
I - For one thing, admitting to the Hollowcause contradicts the above. The
"Holocaust", far from being a non-issue for us, is crucial in:
a- justifying Jewish/Zionist power, b- substantiating the claim that the Jew
needs a special place of his own that he can call a homeland to shield him
from the 'anti-semitism' of this world, and c- keeping the Jew exempt from
abiding by all the human and divine codes known to man.
Once we accept the "Holocaust", we have already put ourselves at a
disadvantage in calling for the right of return. Afterall, wouldn't that
return of Palestinians to their land and property contradict the Jewish need
to have a homeland of their own?! Given all the ALLEGED suffering the Jew
has been through, wouldn't the return of Palestinians put the eternally
threatened Jew at risk?! See, you can't simply accept the right of return
and at the same time ignore the Hollowcause, for you can be sure that the
Hollowcause is looming in the back of the mind of Western public opinion
when we demand the right of return. We can't sweep that under the rug, no
matter how much we try.
By the way, one begins to accept the Hollowcause once one writes it with a
capital H, as "Holocaust". So even if you say there are many questions
surrounding it, if you write it with a capital H, you have already accepted
it. For more on that, read what Robert Faurisson wrote about this under
Previous FAV Issues at: Faurisson's Cancelled Lecture in Beirut
Below you shall find the quotes referred to in Dr. Masad Arbid's piece:
"The larger question is: Do Jews and Zionists need more support in the
pursuit of their claims in addition to their control of the world's media
and financial resources and the exploitation of the victims of
the Holocaust? [referencing here Finkelstein whom FAV has already
challenged. See:
A Counter-Finkelstein "Holocaust" Lecture]... .
Isn't it the responsibility of the White Europeans who committed those
crimes and the capitalist regimes that gave birth to Nazism, Fascism and
Zionism? Why don't we let the White Europeans and their regimes take
responsibility for their acts and bear the burden of their racist history
(not only toward the Holocaust .."
Note here the capital H attached to this alleged massacre. Moreover, why
should we jump to believe in this alleged theory??? Does it really serve us
AT ALL to adopt this theory wholesale and say let the White Europeans pay
for their crimes?!.. Also, the article continues to say that we are not even
concerned with this issue, leave it to the experts, because already "The
Holocaust and Jewish claims against European and Arab countries have
received enough attention, definitely more than any other persecution or
massacre in the human history." Here, the article is not even challenging
the truth behind this alleged massacre, only that it has received enough
attention!! The article does, however, mention casually, that "There are
many questions surrounding the Holocaust that are not resolved yet and
should be, at least for the present time and for the purposes of this paper,
left for the experts." In our opinion, this is a major flaw too, because not
only is this massacre very much questionable, but ALSO REFUTING it is VERY
relevant to our cause. It is clear from the tone of the article, that the
author acknowledges the holocaust, however, he only says let the Europeans
pay, not us. "Let the White Europeans bear full responsibility for their own
acts and the heavy burden of their racist history". That is, it's a white
man's burden.
Now let's summarize on the issue of the hollowcause:
Our position is NOT just that the hollowcause is important to us, because if
we accept it we give weapons to our enemies. Although this is correct in the
framework of our position, it is not enough: It says nothing about the
overwelming historic evidence against it. So in fact we aren't saying "we
don't accept the Hollowcause story because doing so would be contrary to our
interests", but "We don't keep silent about the falsity of the Hollowcause
because doing so is contrary to our interests". The difference between the
two is that the first statement could be made even if the Hollocause story
was true.
On the issue of 'experts', it should be said that experts (at least the
revisionist historians among them) have fulfilled their duty toward us and
toward history - often at great expense to their academic careers, their
wellbeing and even their personal safety. It is now up to us to do our duty
toward them and toward history - a duty which includes the duty to defend
them and their findings, and to put the historic truth they have unearthed
inside its political context - that is, explain that the myth of the
"Holocaust" was conceived and nourished primarily in order to justify
occupation.
Mind you, the author does't specify exactly what he means by 'experts', but
that is one way he can be misunderstood, so it's better if he makes some
clarification here. As far as we are concerned, we stand vehemently with the
argument that one cannot 'buy' into the Jewish hollowcause ever. We still
maintain that there have been innumerable examples of holocausts throughout
the history of humankind, and that there can be no justification for
elevating the Jews over other people in respect of their casualties to
history, even if all of their contentions with respect to the Second World
War were proven, which has not been the case. Indeed, many of their claims
have been utterly disproven. Far beyond that, however, is the maddening
attitude that Jewish blood is somehow worth more, which to us is what the
'Hollowcause' is all about...
II - Another issue raised in the piece which seems to contradict the basics
above, is the demand for the state of "Israel" to assume the cost of
rebuilding the homes, villages etc it has destroyed, in order to make the
return of refugees possible. Doesn't making this demand imply an acceptance
of "Israel"? For we can't demand the destruction of the Zionist state, and
at the same time demand that this destroyed state repair the destroyed
property.
Of course, it is possible that this point emanates from a misunderstanding.
If so, then a clarification is definitely needed here too.
Otherwise, this demand could be changed to something like this:
"Justice demands that those who for more than half a century have profited
from the creation of the settler-colonial state of "Israel", that is, the
individual occupiers on one hand, and the imperialist powers that used it to
further their control of the region on the other, pay for the reconstruction
of the properties they have destroyed"
The second version doesn't imply an acceptance of the state of "Israel",
rather it states that the properties of Zionists can be appropriated by the
future Arab state to compensate the refugees.
III - Another thing which seems rather paradoxical is the following
statement, which was previously challenged in Dr. Arbid's critique of the
ADC pamphlet:
"1)The Arab Jews have the right to return to their countries of origin and
Arab countries should accept their return. This is in harmony with
principles of human rights and international law. However, the Palestinians
have also the same right of return to their homes of origin in Occupied
Palestine." The author has previously in the same article challenged ADC's
equating Palestinian refugees with Arab Jew settlers/invaders of Palestine,
saying that no, those Arab Jews CHOSE to leave their original Arab countries
to move into the Zionist state and therefore forfeited their rights to their
properties in their arab countries of origin. Now as we can see it, he is
doing the EXACT SAME THING AS THE ADC, by stating that those Arab Jews have
the right to return, just as the Palestinians do!!!
He does however go on to say that those Arab Jews have no claims on
COMPENSATION OF PROPERTY, for the reasons he stated before, but that "3)Our
position should be to insist on the 'return of Arab Jews' vs. 'the
Palestinian right of return'. This is the rationale of the struggle for the
destruction of the Zionist- settler- racist project in Palestine. "
BUT WHY SHOULD WE LINK THE RETURN OF THESE ARAB JEWS TO THEIR ORIGINAL
COUNTRIES WITH THE RETURN OF PALESTINIANS TO THEIR HOMELAND??? For
all we care, those Arab Jews who WILLINGLY immigrated to/invaded Palestine,
to become part of a settler/invader society, can now GO TO HELL! We should
NOT link the right of return of Palestinians with the Jews' return to their
countries of origin!! Whether they choose to go back to their countries of
origin or not, is NOT our concern. Thus, there is no rationale whatsoever in
a demand to link this to our ROR!
Moreover, upon challenging the issue of "Absorption of Palestinian Refugees
inside Israel" the author goes on to say that "With the exception of tiny
groups of the Israeli leftists, there are no social or political forces in
the Zionist state that struggle for putting an end to the racist,
theological nature of the Israeli state or for building a society where all
people are treated equally regardless of ethnic or religious origin." But is
this the crux of our struggle with the zionist entity??? RACISM??
DISCRIMINATION??? Is that all it is about?? Isn't it first and foremost a
question of OCCUPATION even if it by some magical powers ceased to be
racist??!! Also, what's with this "Israeli leftists"?? Previously in this
article, the author stated that even "Arab" Jews who chose to IMMIGRATE to
Palestine, are not considered legal citizens of Palestine, as they are now
part of a settler/invader zionist society. Now he talks about a minor
"Israeli" leftist group who is struggling to put an end to the racist nature
of the "ISRAELI STATE"!! Once more, the author might not mean it that way,
but that is the way it CAN be understood.
It's clear that one can use the argument of the essential racist and
apartheid nature of the Zionist entity more in the States and Western
Europe, in an attempt to engage the understanding of non-Arabs. It is
probably the most forceful argument against the Zionist entity where
non-Arabs are concerned. Of course, the fact that this is a matter of
Occupation, never mind the nature of the Occupiers, must NEVER be
forgotten... Afterall, the problem with ADC and the self-alienated Arab
intellectuals is not that they adopt non-violent or conciliatory language
where these should be adopted, but that they elevate tactics into
principles, by substituting the liberation of Palestine and the struggle
against imperialism with tactics that can only be suitable for particularly
limited times and circumstances. In other words, there is nothing wrong
with emphasizing the racist nature of "israel" where need be, as long as we
know and as long as we work towards bringing forth the main problem with
"Israel", i.e., that of the occupation. In the piece, that focus seems to
be lost in the sentences pointed out in the paragraph above. It is again
possible that the author did not mean it that way, but hopefully you'll see
how it is possible for it to be misconstrued that way..
Similarly for the other remarks. Not all the readers know Dr. Arbid's good
intentions and honorable political history like we do, so if we can misread
them, when we know who he is, other readers are more likely to misread them
too. So if any of the remarks above are wrong, which might well be the
case, we suggest that they be fixed so they cannot be misread in a way that
contradicts the very premises on which the piece stands. Again, if you
choose not to make any changes, we can simply publish your piece along with
our remarks on it..[Dr. Arbid chose the latter option].
These remarks were of course written by FAV's board in the spirit of
camraderie and solidarity. We hope that they would be taken that way, and
that they would be considered seriously. And we hereby renew our call for
cooperation and dialogue.
Eagerly awaiting your response.
FAV's Board
|
%20copy.jpg)