Em 1948 a Assembléia Geral das Nações Unidas aprovou a Resolução 194 na Questão da Palestina. Este documento "resolves that refugees whishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation shoul be paid for the property of those choosing not to return..."
A ironia desta Resolução é que os refugiados palestinos que foram desapropriados e deportados têm o direito legal de Retorno e não podem retornar à Palestina, enquanto que Israel incita judeus sem nenhuma ligação com a região a um pseudo "retorno" à terra alheia sem sofrer nenhuma represália da ONU e de nenhum organismo jurídico internacional.
Em 2015 há mais de 3.7 milhões de refugiados palestinos instalados em campos de refugiados no oriente Médio e quase o mesmo tanto exilados mundo afora. Seu direito de retorno é claro e sem ambiguidade garantido pela Lei Internacional das Convenções de Genebra, a Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos e o Internactional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Os refugiados palestinos têm o direito de reclamar cidadania, compensação financeira pela desapropriação e em certos casos, retorno a lares e propriedades localizadas no atual Estado de Israel. Apesar disso o governo de Israel se opõe ao retorno dos cidadãos palestinos expulsos a fim de manter o caráter judeu de seu Estado.
É ponto pacífico que qualquer que seja o teor de um futuro acordo entre Israel e Palestina, a questão do respeito dos direitos dos refugiados tem de ser resolvida e suas demandas têm de se atendidas. Caso contrário, qualquer acordo de paz assinado será relativo e precário. Pois onde quer que seja; a única coisa que garante a paz é justiça.
Palavra de deportado
E nas palavras de um palestino da diáspora, "Palestinian Right of Return (Haq Al-Awda) is one of the most sensitive and complicated aspects of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Palestinians, who were uprooted from their own homeland and are now scattered all over the world, believe deep in their hearts that a tremendous injustice has been done to them, and that ultimate justice cannot be achieved unless they are all allowed to return to their homeland. However, many of them are convinced now that facts and realities on the ground do not make such an ultimate justice possible. Taking that into account, relative justice becomes desirable.
This Right of Return is not only a historical claim or a God-given right; it is the combination of a historical claim and a national right on the one hand, and an individual personal claim on the other. It is the claim to a specific private property, a house, a piece of land, a citrus grove, or even a particular tree. It is also the emotional attachment to some very personal memories linked to the particular property and its surroundings, within the context of the national attachment of the Palestinian people to their homeland, Palestine.
Many Palestinians were forced to leave their land and homes at gun-point, or through psychological intimidation, or simply as civilians fleeing from the battle-field, seeking refuge until all was calm, and they could return. However, they were denied this right and thus became permanent refugees, known as the Palestinian refugees of 1948, though the legitimacy of their right to return to their homes and land, or to be compensated is embodied in U.N. Resolution 194 of December 1948, and all other relevant U.N. resolutions.
Since that time, Palestinians have been living with the dream of turning the clock back to the pre-1948 situation, in other words, returning to the land and homes which were taken from them during the 1948 war and from which they were uprooted and driven away. They were not ready to accept the new reality created by the war of 1948. For them, Israel as a state did not exist, and Palestinian literature from 1948 onward referred to it as the "Zionist enemy," or the "invading enemy," and Palestine was the "robbed" or "raped" homeland.
The Palestinian refugees refused to be re-settled in any of the neighboring arab countries, and unlike the Jewish immigrants to Israel, they refused to identify themselves with the countries where they sought refuge. Palestinians have always viewed their residence in the host countries, and even in the refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza, as a temporary situation. The years have passed, but these refugees have not lost faith in the prospect that one day they would be going back to where they came from - to Palestine. They have waited for the results of U.N. missions, Security Council resolutions, and even for the next war to take them home.
Refugee camps became the symbol of the Palestinian national problem. Furthermore, a willingness to assimilate into any other place was seen by many Palestinians as a sign of readiness to give up or to compromise on the Right of Return, a right which they believed applied to every inch of Palestine.
Subsequently, in 1958, the Fatah movement was established, taking the first step towards an organized national struggle for the attainment of the rights of the Palestinian people, including the Right of Return. The Palestinian program called for the establishment of a democratic bi-national Palestinian state for Arabs and Jews alike on all of Mandatory Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean.
In the early 1970's, a new approach was developing within the circles of Palestinian intellectuals in favor of realism. They advocated compromise with Israel and sought a settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by establishing a Palestinian state in part of Palestine alongside Israel, with the two peoples living side by side on the basis of mutual recognition and co-existence.
Those who adopted this approach were often labelled as traitors who were giving up their homeland and selling the national rights of their own people. A good number of the elite of Palestinian intellectuals were assassinated in different European capitals simply because they endorsed this approach, or were close advisors to Chairman Arafat, and helped to push the moderate process within the PLO. Qaleq, Khader, Hamshari, and Sartawi were among those who paid with their lives on the road to realism, moderation, and compromise.
Nevertheless, this new trend of realism took root and gradually gained the support of the majority within the Palestinian national movement, represented by the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. It found its expression in 1974 when the Palestinian National Council (the PLO parliament) adopted the first of successive resolutions calling for the establishment of a "Palestinian national authority" on any part of Palestine evacuated by Israel.
This was the beginning of a long process, that of preparing the Palestinian people for a two-state solution: two states for two peoples, with Palestine alongside Israel. For the Palestinians, this was not their first choice. For years, they had been advocating the option of a democratic bi-national state, with Palestinian Arabs and Jews living together with equal rights and duties as citizens of the same state. The Jews, on the other hand, had strongly opposed the idea of a bi-national state, and insisted on a Jewish state instead. Even after being faced with growing pressure to recognize the Palestinian national rights, the Israeli Knesset, ignoring the feelings of Israel's own Arab citizens and Arab Knesset members, passed a law maintaining that Israel was the state of the Jewish people.
Israel has always rejected the return of Palestinians to their homeland claiming that their demand for this right proved they were not serious about peace. It has further viewed the implementation of this right as a threat to the very existence of the Jewish state on the basis that this return would destroy the Jewish image of Israel and turn it into a bi-national state.
Consequently the Palestinians reached the conclusion that, neither the Israeli public, nor the Western world, were ready to adopt the option of a bi-national democratic state; and a Palestinian state alongside Israel became the most realistic option.
Hence, after great internal deliberations and carefully weighed considerations, the Palestinian national movement adopted the "two state" solution, not as its first choice, but as a compromise proposal in order to accommodate the Israeli demand for a Jewish state and the Palestinian national right and demand for an independent state. It was not easy to make this change.
However, November 1988 saw the culmination of this process of change as the P.N.C. declared its acceptance of the U.N. Partition Resolution 181 of November 1947, and the Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. This was not a chance combination. Indeed, the first resolution stated the principle of partition, and the second, by respecting the territorial integrity of all states in the region, and the non-acquisition of land by force, was a clear hint to Israel that the demanded withdrawal was to the borders of the 4th of June, 1967.
In December 1988, this position was reinforced by Arafat's declaration in Geneva that the PLO denounces terrorism, and recognizes Israel's right to exist. Thus, the road was paved for a reasonable settlement based on the principle of "two states for two peoples". This stance confirms not only the Palestinian position, but also that of the Arab peace initiative as expressed in the September 1982 Arab summit meeting in Fez.
Accordingly, with a realistic solution becoming more possible than ever, the Right of Return became a highly relevant topic for discussion. However, the reality of Israel's existence and its concern about staying a Jewish state, represent an obstacle to the practical application of the Right of Return for the 1948 Palestinian refugee. Yet knowing the Israeli position in that respect, does not entail that Palestinians give up their claim for return in advance. One must distinguish between, on the one hand, the "right of return" as a principle, and on the other hand, exercising that right by literally returning to Palestine as a national homeland, and to that same home, piece of land, or grove which a certain Palestinian owned before 1948, as a private individual property.
The circumstances under which the Palestinian refugees have lived since 1948, and the suffering which they have endured and are still enduring, have forced many of them to view their return as the acquisition of national independence and dignity, and not necessarily as a literal return. In other words, Palestinians continue to believe that they are entitled to their claim to the Right of Return, but they are prepared to bring it to the negotiating table. This claim can be satisfied either through the actual return of a mutually acceptable number of refugees, or a symbolic number of them, or through compensation, or even through the implementation of any other option agreed upon through the negotiations on a comprehensive settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
There should be no objection to the return of Palestinians to a newly-created Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. This will help put an end to the suffering of Palestinian refugees in places such as Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, and will provide a place where returnees can be welcome after years of persecution, and living as unwelcome guests in many countries such as Lebanon.
The Palestinian state will also provide the Palestinians with a national homeland, as well as a passport, a flag, and a shelter. Those who have already settled in many corners of the world might choose not to come back, but they will inevitably sympathize with the state of Palestine, and feel proud of it. A Palestinian Law of Return will certainly be of great moral value both to them, as well as to those who will pack up their belongings and return.
At this point, one should distinguish between the 1948 refugees, the subject of this article, and the Palestinians displaced during or as a result of the 1967 War. The latter, whose permanent address is in the West Bank or Gaza, whether they were residing there at the time, or happened to be outside (working, studying or visiting), have the full right to come back. In fact, there is no reason for Israel to oppose their return since it has to withdraw from these territories in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 242 and within the framework of the peace process. The return of these displaced Palestinians will be worked out according to the D.O.P. by a combined committee of the PLO, Egypt, Israel and Jordan.
In conclusion, land is the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the Palestinian refugees as the main victims. As long as the problem of these refugees is not solved, the conflict will persist and the Palestinian Right of Return will remain on the agenda until it is addressed and settled in an honorable way. A comprehensive settlement must, therefore, solve the Palestinian problem in all its aspects, including the refugee problem. This does not seem impossible in the light of the moderate winds blowing from the Palestinian camp. A spirit of compromise and reconciliation is prevailing, in spite of the very hard and depressing conditions of daily life in the occupied Palestinian land caused by the harsh, repressive measures of the occupation. This historic opportunity should not be missed."
Many Palestinians were forced to leave their land and homes at gun-point, or through psychological intimidation, or simply as civilians fleeing from the battle-field, seeking refuge until all was calm, and they could return. However, they were denied this right and thus became permanent refugees, known as the Palestinian refugees of 1948, though the legitimacy of their right to return to their homes and land, or to be compensated is embodied in U.N. Resolution 194 of December 1948, and all other relevant U.N. resolutions.
Since that time, Palestinians have been living with the dream of turning the clock back to the pre-1948 situation, in other words, returning to the land and homes which were taken from them during the 1948 war and from which they were uprooted and driven away. They were not ready to accept the new reality created by the war of 1948. For them, Israel as a state did not exist, and Palestinian literature from 1948 onward referred to it as the "Zionist enemy," or the "invading enemy," and Palestine was the "robbed" or "raped" homeland.
The Palestinian refugees refused to be re-settled in any of the neighboring arab countries, and unlike the Jewish immigrants to Israel, they refused to identify themselves with the countries where they sought refuge. Palestinians have always viewed their residence in the host countries, and even in the refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza, as a temporary situation. The years have passed, but these refugees have not lost faith in the prospect that one day they would be going back to where they came from - to Palestine. They have waited for the results of U.N. missions, Security Council resolutions, and even for the next war to take them home.
Refugee camps became the symbol of the Palestinian national problem. Furthermore, a willingness to assimilate into any other place was seen by many Palestinians as a sign of readiness to give up or to compromise on the Right of Return, a right which they believed applied to every inch of Palestine.
Subsequently, in 1958, the Fatah movement was established, taking the first step towards an organized national struggle for the attainment of the rights of the Palestinian people, including the Right of Return. The Palestinian program called for the establishment of a democratic bi-national Palestinian state for Arabs and Jews alike on all of Mandatory Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean.
In the early 1970's, a new approach was developing within the circles of Palestinian intellectuals in favor of realism. They advocated compromise with Israel and sought a settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by establishing a Palestinian state in part of Palestine alongside Israel, with the two peoples living side by side on the basis of mutual recognition and co-existence.
Those who adopted this approach were often labelled as traitors who were giving up their homeland and selling the national rights of their own people. A good number of the elite of Palestinian intellectuals were assassinated in different European capitals simply because they endorsed this approach, or were close advisors to Chairman Arafat, and helped to push the moderate process within the PLO. Qaleq, Khader, Hamshari, and Sartawi were among those who paid with their lives on the road to realism, moderation, and compromise.
Nevertheless, this new trend of realism took root and gradually gained the support of the majority within the Palestinian national movement, represented by the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. It found its expression in 1974 when the Palestinian National Council (the PLO parliament) adopted the first of successive resolutions calling for the establishment of a "Palestinian national authority" on any part of Palestine evacuated by Israel.
This was the beginning of a long process, that of preparing the Palestinian people for a two-state solution: two states for two peoples, with Palestine alongside Israel. For the Palestinians, this was not their first choice. For years, they had been advocating the option of a democratic bi-national state, with Palestinian Arabs and Jews living together with equal rights and duties as citizens of the same state. The Jews, on the other hand, had strongly opposed the idea of a bi-national state, and insisted on a Jewish state instead. Even after being faced with growing pressure to recognize the Palestinian national rights, the Israeli Knesset, ignoring the feelings of Israel's own Arab citizens and Arab Knesset members, passed a law maintaining that Israel was the state of the Jewish people.
Israel has always rejected the return of Palestinians to their homeland claiming that their demand for this right proved they were not serious about peace. It has further viewed the implementation of this right as a threat to the very existence of the Jewish state on the basis that this return would destroy the Jewish image of Israel and turn it into a bi-national state.
Consequently the Palestinians reached the conclusion that, neither the Israeli public, nor the Western world, were ready to adopt the option of a bi-national democratic state; and a Palestinian state alongside Israel became the most realistic option.
Hence, after great internal deliberations and carefully weighed considerations, the Palestinian national movement adopted the "two state" solution, not as its first choice, but as a compromise proposal in order to accommodate the Israeli demand for a Jewish state and the Palestinian national right and demand for an independent state. It was not easy to make this change.
However, November 1988 saw the culmination of this process of change as the P.N.C. declared its acceptance of the U.N. Partition Resolution 181 of November 1947, and the Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. This was not a chance combination. Indeed, the first resolution stated the principle of partition, and the second, by respecting the territorial integrity of all states in the region, and the non-acquisition of land by force, was a clear hint to Israel that the demanded withdrawal was to the borders of the 4th of June, 1967.
In December 1988, this position was reinforced by Arafat's declaration in Geneva that the PLO denounces terrorism, and recognizes Israel's right to exist. Thus, the road was paved for a reasonable settlement based on the principle of "two states for two peoples". This stance confirms not only the Palestinian position, but also that of the Arab peace initiative as expressed in the September 1982 Arab summit meeting in Fez.
Accordingly, with a realistic solution becoming more possible than ever, the Right of Return became a highly relevant topic for discussion. However, the reality of Israel's existence and its concern about staying a Jewish state, represent an obstacle to the practical application of the Right of Return for the 1948 Palestinian refugee. Yet knowing the Israeli position in that respect, does not entail that Palestinians give up their claim for return in advance. One must distinguish between, on the one hand, the "right of return" as a principle, and on the other hand, exercising that right by literally returning to Palestine as a national homeland, and to that same home, piece of land, or grove which a certain Palestinian owned before 1948, as a private individual property.
The circumstances under which the Palestinian refugees have lived since 1948, and the suffering which they have endured and are still enduring, have forced many of them to view their return as the acquisition of national independence and dignity, and not necessarily as a literal return. In other words, Palestinians continue to believe that they are entitled to their claim to the Right of Return, but they are prepared to bring it to the negotiating table. This claim can be satisfied either through the actual return of a mutually acceptable number of refugees, or a symbolic number of them, or through compensation, or even through the implementation of any other option agreed upon through the negotiations on a comprehensive settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
There should be no objection to the return of Palestinians to a newly-created Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. This will help put an end to the suffering of Palestinian refugees in places such as Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, and will provide a place where returnees can be welcome after years of persecution, and living as unwelcome guests in many countries such as Lebanon.
The Palestinian state will also provide the Palestinians with a national homeland, as well as a passport, a flag, and a shelter. Those who have already settled in many corners of the world might choose not to come back, but they will inevitably sympathize with the state of Palestine, and feel proud of it. A Palestinian Law of Return will certainly be of great moral value both to them, as well as to those who will pack up their belongings and return.
At this point, one should distinguish between the 1948 refugees, the subject of this article, and the Palestinians displaced during or as a result of the 1967 War. The latter, whose permanent address is in the West Bank or Gaza, whether they were residing there at the time, or happened to be outside (working, studying or visiting), have the full right to come back. In fact, there is no reason for Israel to oppose their return since it has to withdraw from these territories in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 242 and within the framework of the peace process. The return of these displaced Palestinians will be worked out according to the D.O.P. by a combined committee of the PLO, Egypt, Israel and Jordan.
In conclusion, land is the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the Palestinian refugees as the main victims. As long as the problem of these refugees is not solved, the conflict will persist and the Palestinian Right of Return will remain on the agenda until it is addressed and settled in an honorable way. A comprehensive settlement must, therefore, solve the Palestinian problem in all its aspects, including the refugee problem. This does not seem impossible in the light of the moderate winds blowing from the Palestinian camp. A spirit of compromise and reconciliation is prevailing, in spite of the very hard and depressing conditions of daily life in the occupied Palestinian land caused by the harsh, repressive measures of the occupation. This historic opportunity should not be missed."
Israeli administration raids and loots Kufr Birim
Como disse acima, o Haq Al-Awda / Right of Return / Direito de Retorno dos palestinos à pátria é o assunto mais controvertido dos chamados Acordos de Paz.
15 de maio é o dia em que os palestinos lamentam anualmente a Naqba (Blog 15/05/11) que gerou a diáspora de centenas de famílias que se multiplicaram em mais de cinco milhões de refugiados registrados na ONU em 2015. Centenas de milhares estão espalhados em cidades árabes e ocidentais seguindo a vida anonimamente como imigrantes mais ou menos desejados e mais centenas de milhares encontram-se em campos de refugiados nos países vizinhos - como Yarmouk, nos territórios palestinos ocupados e em Israel.
Estes últimos são tidos como "internally displaced persons". E constituem 20 por cento da população israelense.
Neste ano a comemoração da Naqba foi reprimida na Cisjordânia e proibida e reprimida mais ainda dentro de Israel para que as novas gerações esqueçam. Porém, Ameer Ashqar, um das centenas de palestinos cristãos "internally displaced", não esquece, carrega a chave da casa roubada e conta: "My grandfather was sent to al-Rama during the first evacuation. From there, he went to Acre. He is 87 years old. He still tells us stories about Iqrit and how it was. He can still draw a map of the village and how it was before the Nakba. We are here. We are not going anywhere." Ele é um dos ativistas palestinos acampados em Iqrit em volta da igreja antiga que exigem o retorno aos lares que perderam no dia 25 de dezembro de 1951. Foi nesse dia que a recém-formada IDF forçou-os a partir "por duas semanas" e ao evacuarem as casas as dinamitaram uma a uma debochando da celebração do Natal. Iqrit é apenas uma das dezenas de cidades da Galileia que sofreram a mesma limpeza étnica. As semanas se transformaram em meses, anos, décadas e até hoje, apesar do crime ter sido e ser internacionalmente condenado, está durando, demais.
64 anos mais tarde eles resistem e reivindicam seu direito de retorno determinado pela Resolução 194 da ONU. Vira e mexe os soldados da IDF vão lá, 'confiscam' pertences, prendem ativistas que resistem, e o governo de Israel os proíbe de construir e de cultivar até horta. Mas eles continuam lá. No mês de abril, milhares de compatriotas se juntaram a eles para celebrar a Páscoa. Aliás o número de pessoas que afluem de Israel inteiro para apoiar os ativistas aumenta dia a dia. Cada vez mais famílias cristãs prestigiam os concertos, eventos culturais e missas que organizam. Pois segundo Badil, uma ONG de Belém que defende os direitos de refugiados, há mais de 384 mil palestinos internally displaced vivendo em Israel.
Manar Makhoul, pesquisador do Badil, explica: "According to international law, the only difference between a refugee and an internally displaced person, in terms of status, is that a refugee crosses an international border. In terms of their rights, they are identical. They are not separate problems - they are part of the same problem. Unlike UN-registered refugees, internally displaced Palestinian citizens of Israel have no international agency to advocate on their behalf or provide them with aid. In several cases, they have attempted to return to their ancestral villages, most of which remain partially intact, by taking their cases to Israeli courts. Nevertheless, Israel does not recognise internal displacement for the same reason it doesn't recognise Palestinian refugees - it refuses to take responsibility for their displacement. Most of the land has been declared closed military zones, state land or custodial lands, therefore most displaced Palestinians, among them refugees, could return to their land without displacing Israelis".
Seguindo o exemplo de Iqrit, vários ativistas do Al-Awda (O Retorno) voltaram para Kufr Birim e acampam lá desde agosto de 2013. Um deles, Wassim Ghantous, cuja família foi transportada de Kufr Birim para Haifa em 1948, diz: "Israel's refusal to allow us to return to the village is part of its colonial ideology to have more land and less Palestinians. There is no protection mechanism, monitoring body or legal recognition [for internally displaced Palestinians]. There is no equivalent to UNRWA - United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees".
Como em Iqrit, a IDF prometeu à primeira geração de palestinos expulsos de Kufr Birim que poderiam voltar. Contudo, a maior parte de sua terra foi 'doada' a imigrantes judeus na área. Em 1953 a IDF bombardeou o resto da cidade esvaziada destruindo a maioria absoluta de sua infraestrura. Hoje apenas a igreja e o cemitério cristãos estão intactos e paredes de algumas casas.
Em agosto de 2014 policiais israelenses depredaram e pilharam o campo (vídeo acima), confiscando colchões, tendas, lanternas, comida e cortando a eletricidade. A pressão dissuadiu alguns ativistas, mas Asad Ghanaem, professor de Ciências Políticas na Universidade de Haifa, acha que "activists who have carried out direct actions like returning to their destroyed villages are taking into their own hands what politicians have failed to do on their behalf. They will convince politicians that [returning] is worth taking seriously and that it's part of our national.project. Palestinians in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan have a right to return. Here we have young people taking that idea seriously and implementing it. If people take this seriously and continue, it can be one of the most important developments among Palestinians in Israel in recent history. It's not enough to remember each year what happened to us in 1948; now we need a specific plan to move forward. Return is possible, and it will be one of the major contributions [of Palestinians in Israel] to the broader Palestinian-Israeli problem."
Os ativistas de Iqrit acreditam piamente nisso. Tanto que estão organizando um evento no mês que vem. Um acampamento de verão para meninos de 7 a 17 anos batizado "Roots Camp". Os meninos participarão de leituras, passeio pelo vilarejo, filmes e outras atividades culturais. "On the last day of the camp the kids will perform plays about Iqrit and how it was before the Nakba," disse Ashqar de quem o avô incha de orgulho. "He always tells us he is very glad we returned. He says he can die satisfied now. Now, we want people from all over Palestine to follow in our steps and go back to their villages."
Os filhos dos palestinos com passaporte estrangeiro que possam entrar em Israel sem serem detidos, são bem-vindos e aprenderiam muito.
Apesar de entender a luta do Hamas, continuo achando que a desobediência civil é que vai tirar os palestinos do buraco. Pacífica, como a Primeira Intifada. E quando a IDF começar a atirar em pessoas desarmadas diante das câmeras de televisão da mídia inernacional os israelenses vão pagar caro o mesmo erro que os ingleses cometeram na Índia colonial. Como dizia Ghandi, a única coisa que chama a atenção da opinião pública internacional é ver mulheres e crianças serem massacradas. O resto engolem com facilidade.
General Assembly Resolution 194 (1948).
This Resolution calls on a Conciliation Comission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of Palestinian refugees in Israel.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
The right to return has a solid foundation in international law. Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951).
The landmark UN document that specifies the rights of the refugee. The Convention also established a framework of basic refugee rights - for example, the right to identity papers, acces to courts and education. Bottomline, everything that the Palestinians have been denied.
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (1967).
The 1967 Protocol implemented the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Affirmation of the Palestinian Right of Return (March 15, 2000).
One hundred prominent Palestinian personalities (from Palestine, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Arabain Gulf, Europe, UK, US, issued a declaration affirming the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their dispossessed homes.
Palestinian Negotiating Paper on Refugees (January 22, 2001).
An important document from the Taba talks that reflects the Palestinian negotiating position on refugees and their rights in a settlement with Israel. Yasser Arafat was still in charge.
Full Text of the National Conciliation Document of the Prisoners (June 28, 2006).
After Yasser Arafat's death and Mahmoud Abbas' soumission to US/UK/Israel's determination to combat Resistance, to end division between their various factions and to establish a common front, Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails, under Marwan Barghouti's leadership, produced this 'National Conciliation Document'. It seeks to secure the right of return for refugees, calling on the 'internacional community' to implement UN General Assembly Resolution 194.
"One of the most memorable developments of the Israeli elections was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's last-ditch scramble for votes by explicitly ruling out a Palestinian state under his watch. The make-up of his new coalition government highlights the hollowness of his post-election backtracking from that statement amid international uproar - not that anyone was fooled by it.
Arguably the most right-wing, extremist government in Israel's history - and that is saying something - consists of five parties: Likud, Jewish Home, United Torah Judaism, Shas and Kulanu. Between them, they either explicitly rule out a Palestinian state, or accept one with conditions that make the likelihood of its establishment, let alone its viability, impossible.
These conditions include Israel keeping East Jerusalem, being recognised as a Jewish state, and keeping the largest settlement blocs, which are built on the West Bank's water aquifers and most fertile land, and hinder the territorial contiguity of a Palestinian state.
That state, meanwhile, would have to be demilitarised and renounce the rights of Palestinian refugees.
Major concessions
No time was wasted after the announcement of the coalition government on Thursday, with the approved construction of 900 settler homes in East Jerusalem. Indeed, none of the coalition partners accept a freeze on settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territories, which is illegal under international law.
Netanyahu made major concessions to Jewish Home - the most right-wing coalition member, which rejects a Palestinian state outright - as the latter's last-minute support was vital to the formation of a parliamentary majority. Without its backing, Israel's president would have tasked another MP - likely Isaac Herzog, leader of the opposition Zionist Union, the second-largest party in parliament - with forming a government.
Jewish Home will "take several key portfolios, including justice and education, as well as control of the World Zionist Organization's settlement division, which transfers money to settlements," AFP newswire reported.
"The party will have two seats in the security cabinet," which makes critical decisions regarding war and peace, "and the position of deputy defence minister, with responsibility for the Civil Administration that runs civilian affairs in most of the occupied West Bank".
According to media reports, Netanyahu is likely for now to become foreign minister as well as prime minister, and Likud's Moshe Yaalon - also opposed to a Palestinian state - will likely remain defence minister and have a place in the security cabinet. Kulanu leader Moshe Kahlon is expected to become finance minister and serve in the security cabinet.
Kahlon, who favours continued settlement construction, has said talk of a Palestinian state is pointless because "at the moment we have no partner and there's nobody to talk to on the other side". If he and his colleagues do not deem the pliant Palestinian Authority and its President Mahmoud Abbas as worthy of talking to, then no one on the Palestinian side will ever be - in other words, forget indefinitely about a Palestinian state.
Silver lining
Amid such gloomy prospects lies an opportunity for the Palestinians. Had the new Israeli government been more centrist or left-leaning, the international community would be giving it the benefit of the doubt, forgetting that every Israeli government, regardless of ideology, has enthusiastically entrenched the occupation and colonisation of Palestine.
The silver lining with Netanyahu's new coalition is that there will be no pretence or expectation about the prospect of Palestinian self-determination. As such, the Palestinians and their supporters should capitalise on what will likely be Israel's growing international isolation, even among its allies.
This will give further impetus to the increasingly effective Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment movement, it may help the Palestinian case at the International Criminal Court, and it should encourage the PA to join more international bodies and treaties. The Authority may feel that the time is right to renew its bid for a UN Security Council resolution setting a deadline for the end of Israel's occupation.
The first attempt failed because of US lobbying and the threat of its veto. However, since Netanyahu's election pledge to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state, the US has said it may reconsider the use of its veto at the Security Council in support of its staunchest ally.
If another attempt was successful, Israel would ignore it - as it has done with countless other UN resolutions - but this would only add to its pariah status.
The PA must also finally stop its shameful subservience and security coordination with the occupying power, for which the Authority has nothing to show its people. This will result in punitive Israeli measures, but an unashamedly extremist government will have less diplomatic backing.
Israel's flagrant rejection of an independent Palestine may also galvanise the movement for a single binational state. This movement's ranks have been bolstered in recent years by the realisation among more and more people that a two-state solution is no longer possible given the extent of Israel's colonisation and fragmentation of Palestine.
Ironically, those Israeli politicians most vehemently against a Palestinian state may be bringing about their worst nightmare: A binational state with equality of citizenry, rather than the Jewish ethnocracy/theocracy that currently exists and which they want to entrench.
Prospects for a negotiated resolution to the conflict seem more distant than ever, but that does not mean that the situation is devoid of hope. The contrary may be true if the Palestinians and their supporters can turn Israel's intransigence and obstructionism - personified by its new government - into an opportunity".
Sharif Nashashibi is an award-winning journalist and analyst on Arab affairs.
15 de maio é o dia em que os palestinos lamentam anualmente a Naqba (Blog 15/05/11) que gerou a diáspora de centenas de famílias que se multiplicaram em mais de cinco milhões de refugiados registrados na ONU em 2015. Centenas de milhares estão espalhados em cidades árabes e ocidentais seguindo a vida anonimamente como imigrantes mais ou menos desejados e mais centenas de milhares encontram-se em campos de refugiados nos países vizinhos - como Yarmouk, nos territórios palestinos ocupados e em Israel.
Estes últimos são tidos como "internally displaced persons". E constituem 20 por cento da população israelense.
Neste ano a comemoração da Naqba foi reprimida na Cisjordânia e proibida e reprimida mais ainda dentro de Israel para que as novas gerações esqueçam. Porém, Ameer Ashqar, um das centenas de palestinos cristãos "internally displaced", não esquece, carrega a chave da casa roubada e conta: "My grandfather was sent to al-Rama during the first evacuation. From there, he went to Acre. He is 87 years old. He still tells us stories about Iqrit and how it was. He can still draw a map of the village and how it was before the Nakba. We are here. We are not going anywhere." Ele é um dos ativistas palestinos acampados em Iqrit em volta da igreja antiga que exigem o retorno aos lares que perderam no dia 25 de dezembro de 1951. Foi nesse dia que a recém-formada IDF forçou-os a partir "por duas semanas" e ao evacuarem as casas as dinamitaram uma a uma debochando da celebração do Natal. Iqrit é apenas uma das dezenas de cidades da Galileia que sofreram a mesma limpeza étnica. As semanas se transformaram em meses, anos, décadas e até hoje, apesar do crime ter sido e ser internacionalmente condenado, está durando, demais.
64 anos mais tarde eles resistem e reivindicam seu direito de retorno determinado pela Resolução 194 da ONU. Vira e mexe os soldados da IDF vão lá, 'confiscam' pertences, prendem ativistas que resistem, e o governo de Israel os proíbe de construir e de cultivar até horta. Mas eles continuam lá. No mês de abril, milhares de compatriotas se juntaram a eles para celebrar a Páscoa. Aliás o número de pessoas que afluem de Israel inteiro para apoiar os ativistas aumenta dia a dia. Cada vez mais famílias cristãs prestigiam os concertos, eventos culturais e missas que organizam. Pois segundo Badil, uma ONG de Belém que defende os direitos de refugiados, há mais de 384 mil palestinos internally displaced vivendo em Israel.
Manar Makhoul, pesquisador do Badil, explica: "According to international law, the only difference between a refugee and an internally displaced person, in terms of status, is that a refugee crosses an international border. In terms of their rights, they are identical. They are not separate problems - they are part of the same problem. Unlike UN-registered refugees, internally displaced Palestinian citizens of Israel have no international agency to advocate on their behalf or provide them with aid. In several cases, they have attempted to return to their ancestral villages, most of which remain partially intact, by taking their cases to Israeli courts. Nevertheless, Israel does not recognise internal displacement for the same reason it doesn't recognise Palestinian refugees - it refuses to take responsibility for their displacement. Most of the land has been declared closed military zones, state land or custodial lands, therefore most displaced Palestinians, among them refugees, could return to their land without displacing Israelis".
Seguindo o exemplo de Iqrit, vários ativistas do Al-Awda (O Retorno) voltaram para Kufr Birim e acampam lá desde agosto de 2013. Um deles, Wassim Ghantous, cuja família foi transportada de Kufr Birim para Haifa em 1948, diz: "Israel's refusal to allow us to return to the village is part of its colonial ideology to have more land and less Palestinians. There is no protection mechanism, monitoring body or legal recognition [for internally displaced Palestinians]. There is no equivalent to UNRWA - United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees".
Como em Iqrit, a IDF prometeu à primeira geração de palestinos expulsos de Kufr Birim que poderiam voltar. Contudo, a maior parte de sua terra foi 'doada' a imigrantes judeus na área. Em 1953 a IDF bombardeou o resto da cidade esvaziada destruindo a maioria absoluta de sua infraestrura. Hoje apenas a igreja e o cemitério cristãos estão intactos e paredes de algumas casas.
Em agosto de 2014 policiais israelenses depredaram e pilharam o campo (vídeo acima), confiscando colchões, tendas, lanternas, comida e cortando a eletricidade. A pressão dissuadiu alguns ativistas, mas Asad Ghanaem, professor de Ciências Políticas na Universidade de Haifa, acha que "activists who have carried out direct actions like returning to their destroyed villages are taking into their own hands what politicians have failed to do on their behalf. They will convince politicians that [returning] is worth taking seriously and that it's part of our national.project. Palestinians in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan have a right to return. Here we have young people taking that idea seriously and implementing it. If people take this seriously and continue, it can be one of the most important developments among Palestinians in Israel in recent history. It's not enough to remember each year what happened to us in 1948; now we need a specific plan to move forward. Return is possible, and it will be one of the major contributions [of Palestinians in Israel] to the broader Palestinian-Israeli problem."
Os ativistas de Iqrit acreditam piamente nisso. Tanto que estão organizando um evento no mês que vem. Um acampamento de verão para meninos de 7 a 17 anos batizado "Roots Camp". Os meninos participarão de leituras, passeio pelo vilarejo, filmes e outras atividades culturais. "On the last day of the camp the kids will perform plays about Iqrit and how it was before the Nakba," disse Ashqar de quem o avô incha de orgulho. "He always tells us he is very glad we returned. He says he can die satisfied now. Now, we want people from all over Palestine to follow in our steps and go back to their villages."
Os filhos dos palestinos com passaporte estrangeiro que possam entrar em Israel sem serem detidos, são bem-vindos e aprenderiam muito.
Apesar de entender a luta do Hamas, continuo achando que a desobediência civil é que vai tirar os palestinos do buraco. Pacífica, como a Primeira Intifada. E quando a IDF começar a atirar em pessoas desarmadas diante das câmeras de televisão da mídia inernacional os israelenses vão pagar caro o mesmo erro que os ingleses cometeram na Índia colonial. Como dizia Ghandi, a única coisa que chama a atenção da opinião pública internacional é ver mulheres e crianças serem massacradas. O resto engolem com facilidade.
Debate: Palestinian Right of Return (2011)
This Resolution calls on a Conciliation Comission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of Palestinian refugees in Israel.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
The right to return has a solid foundation in international law. Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951).
The landmark UN document that specifies the rights of the refugee. The Convention also established a framework of basic refugee rights - for example, the right to identity papers, acces to courts and education. Bottomline, everything that the Palestinians have been denied.
Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (1967).
The 1967 Protocol implemented the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Affirmation of the Palestinian Right of Return (March 15, 2000).
One hundred prominent Palestinian personalities (from Palestine, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Arabain Gulf, Europe, UK, US, issued a declaration affirming the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their dispossessed homes.
Palestinian Negotiating Paper on Refugees (January 22, 2001).
An important document from the Taba talks that reflects the Palestinian negotiating position on refugees and their rights in a settlement with Israel. Yasser Arafat was still in charge.
Full Text of the National Conciliation Document of the Prisoners (June 28, 2006).
After Yasser Arafat's death and Mahmoud Abbas' soumission to US/UK/Israel's determination to combat Resistance, to end division between their various factions and to establish a common front, Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails, under Marwan Barghouti's leadership, produced this 'National Conciliation Document'. It seeks to secure the right of return for refugees, calling on the 'internacional community' to implement UN General Assembly Resolution 194.
Palestina, existência sistematicamente destruída
It's time to isolate Israel
Arguably the most right-wing, extremist government in Israel's history - and that is saying something - consists of five parties: Likud, Jewish Home, United Torah Judaism, Shas and Kulanu. Between them, they either explicitly rule out a Palestinian state, or accept one with conditions that make the likelihood of its establishment, let alone its viability, impossible.
These conditions include Israel keeping East Jerusalem, being recognised as a Jewish state, and keeping the largest settlement blocs, which are built on the West Bank's water aquifers and most fertile land, and hinder the territorial contiguity of a Palestinian state.
That state, meanwhile, would have to be demilitarised and renounce the rights of Palestinian refugees.
Major concessions
No time was wasted after the announcement of the coalition government on Thursday, with the approved construction of 900 settler homes in East Jerusalem. Indeed, none of the coalition partners accept a freeze on settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territories, which is illegal under international law.
Netanyahu made major concessions to Jewish Home - the most right-wing coalition member, which rejects a Palestinian state outright - as the latter's last-minute support was vital to the formation of a parliamentary majority. Without its backing, Israel's president would have tasked another MP - likely Isaac Herzog, leader of the opposition Zionist Union, the second-largest party in parliament - with forming a government.
Jewish Home will "take several key portfolios, including justice and education, as well as control of the World Zionist Organization's settlement division, which transfers money to settlements," AFP newswire reported.
"The party will have two seats in the security cabinet," which makes critical decisions regarding war and peace, "and the position of deputy defence minister, with responsibility for the Civil Administration that runs civilian affairs in most of the occupied West Bank".
According to media reports, Netanyahu is likely for now to become foreign minister as well as prime minister, and Likud's Moshe Yaalon - also opposed to a Palestinian state - will likely remain defence minister and have a place in the security cabinet. Kulanu leader Moshe Kahlon is expected to become finance minister and serve in the security cabinet.
Kahlon, who favours continued settlement construction, has said talk of a Palestinian state is pointless because "at the moment we have no partner and there's nobody to talk to on the other side". If he and his colleagues do not deem the pliant Palestinian Authority and its President Mahmoud Abbas as worthy of talking to, then no one on the Palestinian side will ever be - in other words, forget indefinitely about a Palestinian state.
Silver lining
Amid such gloomy prospects lies an opportunity for the Palestinians. Had the new Israeli government been more centrist or left-leaning, the international community would be giving it the benefit of the doubt, forgetting that every Israeli government, regardless of ideology, has enthusiastically entrenched the occupation and colonisation of Palestine.
The silver lining with Netanyahu's new coalition is that there will be no pretence or expectation about the prospect of Palestinian self-determination. As such, the Palestinians and their supporters should capitalise on what will likely be Israel's growing international isolation, even among its allies.
This will give further impetus to the increasingly effective Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment movement, it may help the Palestinian case at the International Criminal Court, and it should encourage the PA to join more international bodies and treaties. The Authority may feel that the time is right to renew its bid for a UN Security Council resolution setting a deadline for the end of Israel's occupation.
The first attempt failed because of US lobbying and the threat of its veto. However, since Netanyahu's election pledge to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state, the US has said it may reconsider the use of its veto at the Security Council in support of its staunchest ally.
If another attempt was successful, Israel would ignore it - as it has done with countless other UN resolutions - but this would only add to its pariah status.
The PA must also finally stop its shameful subservience and security coordination with the occupying power, for which the Authority has nothing to show its people. This will result in punitive Israeli measures, but an unashamedly extremist government will have less diplomatic backing.
Israel's flagrant rejection of an independent Palestine may also galvanise the movement for a single binational state. This movement's ranks have been bolstered in recent years by the realisation among more and more people that a two-state solution is no longer possible given the extent of Israel's colonisation and fragmentation of Palestine.
Ironically, those Israeli politicians most vehemently against a Palestinian state may be bringing about their worst nightmare: A binational state with equality of citizenry, rather than the Jewish ethnocracy/theocracy that currently exists and which they want to entrench.
Prospects for a negotiated resolution to the conflict seem more distant than ever, but that does not mean that the situation is devoid of hope. The contrary may be true if the Palestinians and their supporters can turn Israel's intransigence and obstructionism - personified by its new government - into an opportunity".
Sharif Nashashibi is an award-winning journalist and analyst on Arab affairs.
Patrimônio histórico derrubado para apagar a memória/ Death of a collective culture
Papa Francisco honra o cristianismo e orgulha os católicos
Reconhece o Estado da Palestina e canoniza duas freiras
Reconhece o Estado da Palestina e canoniza duas freiras
Nesse ínterim, o Vaticano concluiu no dia 13 de maio seu primeiro tratado que reconhece formalmente o Estado da Palestina. A declaração oficial conjunta (o chefe da delegação palestina foi Rawan Sulaiman, chefe de cabinete do Ministro das Relações Exteriores da ANP) será assinada em breve.O Monsenhor Antoine Caimmeri, vice-Ministro das Relações Exteriores do Vaticano, disse que o Acordo "aims to enhance the life and activities of the Catholic Church and its recognition at the judicial level".
A atitude do Papa em sua visita à Palestina no ano passado, com viagem direta de Amman a Belém sem passar pelo aeroporto Ben Gurion (Blog 08/06/14), em Israel, e sua parada no muro da vergonha para orar já demonstrava seu estado de ânimo.O porta-voz do Vaticano, padre Federico Lombardi, fez questão de sublinhar que embora este acordo seja siginifcativo, apenas reitera a posição da Santa Sé neste sentido. "We have recognised the State of Palestine ever since it was given recognition by the United Nations and it is already listed as the State of Palestine in our official yearbook."
Durante os três dias de visista ao Oriente Médio no ano passado, o papa Francisco já deixara os palestinos nas nuvens ao referir-se ao "State of Palestine" dando seu apoio explícito à cidadania dos nativos.No segundo semestre foi a vez do Parlamento britânico (Blog 19/10/14), após o reconhecimento oficial da Suécia . Outros parlamentos seguiram, apesar dos governantes europeus ainda se dobrarem à pressão dos sionistas e seus milhões de dólares, euros, francos suiços, libras e influência econômica.
Decisão criticada por muitas autoridades israelenses, é claro.
Concluindo, o papa Francisco tomou esta decisão não apenas por sua própria ideologia progressista e humanista, foi também, e muito, graças à pressão dos países católicos da América Latina e da Europa (a Iralanda está na ponta da defesa da Palestina). É por isso que todo ato inidividual conta tanto no plano religioso quanto socio-político-cívico. O boicote é o argumento mais fácil de ser emitido e ouvido. O segundo, é a divulgação da informação; o terceiro é do comportamento diferenciado ao visitar os sítios cristãos na região. Exija uma agência palestina, hotel palestino, guia palestino. São eles que cuidam do nosso patrimônio que respeitam e reverenciam. Ao contrário dos israelenses que só querem o dinheiro do turista estrangeiro.
Pope Francis has canonised two Palestinian nuns from the 19th century, the first from the Middle East venerated since the early days of Christianity.
The Catholic Church leader on Sunday led a ceremony, attended by about 2,000 pilgrims, including Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, at the Vatican to mark the sainthood of Mariam Bawardy and Marie Alphonsine Ghattas, as well as Jeanne Emilie de Villeneuve from France and Maria Cristina from Italy.
Church officials are holding up the new Palestinian saints as a sign of hope and encouragement for Christians in the Middle East at a time when violent persecution has driven many Christians from the region of Christ's birth.
In his homily, Francis said the two women were models of showing unity and charity towards all.
"Their luminous example challenges us in our lives as Christians," he said.
Ghattas, through her focus on women's education and community work, is said to have left behind a network of convents, schools and religious centres. In comparison, Bawardy's life is lived on through the memory of her tough and mysterious life.
It is one of many Rosary Sisters institutions across the Palestinian territories, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and even further afield.
"Her message was to educate Arab women and girls," Sister Hortance Nakhleh said.
"The period she lived in was a difficult one for Arab women, and their education was very limited," Nakhleh said.
In a statement released on Saturday, Mahmoud Abbas praised the two new saints as inspirational models for today's Palestinians and urged their fellow Christians to remain in the region.
"We call on Palestinian Christians to stay with us and enjoy the rights of full and equal citizenship, and bear with us the difficulties of life until we achieve liberty, sovereignty and human dignity," he said.
Abbas' visit came days after the Vatican finalised the bilateral treaty with the "state of Palestine" that made explicit its recognition of Palestinian statehood.
The Vatican said it had expressed "great satisfaction" over the new treaty during the talks with the Palestinian delegation. It said the pope, and later the Vatican secretary of state, also expressed hopes that direct peace talks with Israel would resume.
"To this end, the wish was reiterated that with the support of the international community, Israelis and Palestinians may take with determination courageous decisions to promote peace," a Vatican statement said.
Israel earlier had expressed its "disappointment" that the Vatican officially recognised the State of Palestine in the treaty, which covers the activities of the Catholic Church in Palestinian territory.
Reações dos ultra-sionistas nos EUA
Al Jazeera special series: Al Nakba
I (47')
II (48')
III (48')
IV (25')
Naqba: Legendado em português (95')
Debate
Lei israelense Anti-Boicote
Já abordara o tema do boicote em blogs precedentes (22/01/12; 21/07/13; 02/03/14; 27/08/14) e talvez por isso tenha recebido tantos emails nas duas últimas semanas pedindo detalhes e perguntando sobre as implicações nos direitos cívicos e humanos dos cidadãos israelenses e a influência dessa medida na evolução do BDS.
Um dos artigos que provocaram mais crítica das ONGs humanitárias foi o que estabelece que todo cidadão de Israel - judeu ou árabe cristão e muçulmano - está sujeito a multa astronômica caso o Tribunal julgue "malicious intent" em seu posicionamento verbal em relacionamento ao boicote.
O problema com a Justiça em Israel é que como o país não tem Constituição, o cidadão está sujeito a leis oportunistas sectárias (no sentido exato da palavra) em vez de regras morais e cívicas. É por isso também que considero Israel uma democracia relativa. Suas leis são estabelecidas pelo Knesset e sujeitas à apreciação aleatória de juízes que interpretam o Direito como os fariseus interpretam a Torah (como por exemplo, é proibido trabalhar no Sabat e o 'trabalho' é definido segundo concepções próprias das autoridades religiosas). E isto é um perigo porque os homens são fracos e escravos de interesses e ideias pessoaiss e não à Justiça ou o bem-estar geral.
Transcrevo abaixo resposta às perguntas que me fizeram. Em Inglês porque recebi muitos correios em línguas estrangeiras e acho melhor não arriscar traduções google aproximativas que deformem o sentido.
The Law for the Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel through Boycott - or the anti-boycott law, as it's more commonly referred to - allows for suing individuals oor groups for "deliberately avoiding economic, cultural or academic ties with another person or body solely because of their affinity with the State of Israel, one of its institutions, or an area under its control".
The law gives Israel's finance ministry the right to impose financial penalties on any organisation receiving state funds that makes calls for boycott. With approval from the Knesset's constitution, law and justice committee, the government can also limit bidding on tenders to companies or organisations that do not participate in boycotts or boycott calls.
Only one provision of the law, which allowed for compensation without proof of damage, was struck down by the Supreme Court.
By a vote of 5-4, and in a 233-page decision, the court rejected petitions by Israeli civil society organisations. The petitioners included six leading Israeli human rights groups: the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel (Adalah), the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, the Center for the Defence of the Individual (HaMoked), the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, and Yesh Din, and Gush Shalom.
Three other organisations that promote an economic boycott of Israel were also involved, including the Coalition of Women for Peace, the High Follow-up Committee for Arab Citizens in Israel, and the Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights Center.
The petitioners argued that the law silenced opposition. "Boycott is a worldwide recognised and legitimate non-violent tool in struggles for social and political change," the Coalition of Women for Peace said in a statement.
According to Omar Barghouti, a Palestinian human rights activist and a co-founder of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement: "This repressive law will disproportionately muzzle the second-class Palestinian citizens of Israel, the Palestinian non-citizens in occupied Jerusalem, and the small but clearly effective minority of Jewish-Israeli supporters of BDS and other selective boycotts of the occupation-related companies and institutions."
Sawsan Zaher, an attorney with Adalah, said the law hits Palestinian East Jerusalemites hard because it prevents them from "using a main civil protest tool of boycott to end the occupation".
"This arbitrary law harms Palestinians more than others, because they are on the front lines of struggling against the occupation and the violation of the human rights of their people under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza," Zaher said.
According to Israeli journalist Akiva Eldar, the law blurs the boundaries of the Green Line - the 1949 armistice line - because it makes it illegal to even boycott settlements in the West Bank. Eldar called it "a legal stamp of approval to imposing Israeli state law on territory outside its borders, which is another way of calling for the annexation of the West Bank".
Eldar said the law has also left its mark on freedom of expression in Israel. "Thus, while blurring the issue of the Green Line boundary, the [Supreme Court] justices placed a question mark over the boundaries of free speech in Israel," he wrote.
Some argue that the law comes in response to the BDS movement's growing influence. "This draconian bill, which came in response to the unquestionable impact of the Palestinian-led BDS movement, desperately attempts to delegitimise boycotts - a crucial, time-honoured form of nonviolent resistance that played a key role in the South African anti-apartheid struggle and the civil rights movement in the US," Barghouti said.
"There is no flaw in the Knesset giving expression in law to a struggle against those who try to destroy us," Supreme Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein wrote, explaining why he rejected the petition.
Writing the ruling for the majority, Judge Hanan Melcer acknowledged that the law infringed on freedom of expression, but said it advanced a worthy cause, while being "limited" in its harm to those who call for boycotts.
The law relates solely to boycott calls, and does not impose any criminal prohibition on those who express the political views underlying calls for a boycott, Melcer wrote. "To establish grounds to sue for tort liability requires many elements - proof of damage, a causal link between the tort and the damage, and awareness of the reasonable possibility of damage."
Os israelenses estão sofrendo com esta lei anti-democrática. Mas nós podemos boicotar à vontade, seguindo nossa consciência. É só tomar cuidado nos supermercados.
People and Power: Boycott Israel
Boicote Israel usando a aplicação Buycott
