 | ISSUE NO: 003 | ABOUT AL - MUNADIThis newspaper was established in 1912 in Jerusalem. It focused on cultural issues, but had a very clear, and prophetic view, on the disastrous impact Zionism would have on Palestine. The editors were two Jerusalemite Palestinians, Muhammad al-Mughrabi and Sa‘id Jarallah. It was one of the first Muslim newspapers, the early ones were Christians, it was a precursor of the local newspapers in the mandatory period, asserting the Palestinians rights for liberation and self-determination in their homeland. At the same time, it called for the modernization of Palestine and thus visualized a Palestine that could have been, had it not been for the Zionist colonization. |
| PERSPECTIVES ON TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
FROM THE EDITOR IN CHIEF
April 2023 Editorial |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warm greetings to all our MLN readers.
The last month has seen a series of brutal, deliberately provocative Israeli attacks on Palestinian worshippers at Al Aqsa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Scenes of Israeli soldiers battering and bludgeoning Muslim worshippers in the nighttime attack provoked outrage from many countries around the world.
Needless to say, Israel had no business interfering in Muslim worship at Al Aqsa, the third holiest site for Muslims after Mecca and Medina, and an area which is not under their authority. Despite this, Israeli attacks at Al Aqsa have intensified in recent years as the apartheid state strives to undermine all aspects of Palestinian life in Jerusalem and “Judaise” the city through the slow-motion ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
Inevitably missile attacks on Israel from Gaza, Southern Lebanon and Syria followed the vicious assaults and Israel has reveled in once again trying to portray itself to the world as the victim.
So how did the mainstream western media report the Israeli attacks on worshippers at Al Aqsa mosque?
Initial reporting in most places seemed reasonable and clearly identified Israel as the brutal aggressors attacking Palestinian civilians at worship. However, within a couple of days much of the reporting deteriorated dramatically – painting Israel as “under attack from all sides” by terrorists. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|  | The BBC interview, pictured above, was with former Palestinian spokesperson Hanan Ashrawi who more than held her own against a hostile journalist |
| It’s no surprise that the worst reporting has come from the BBC which has a long history as a pro-Israel apologist.
“Israeli police clash with Al Aqsa worshippers” was the BBC headline” – see picture above. Such a cynical, lazy headline is typical of the British state broadcaster. It wasn’t a “clash” – it was a thuggish, unprovoked, brutal attack on Palestinian worshippers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| In its reporting on the Middle East the BBC slavishly and consistently screws the scrum in Israel’s favour. Instead of reporting on the Middle East it propagandises for Israel.
Journalist Jonathan Cook describes how the BBC coverage is enabling Israeli violence and UN Special Rapporteur on the Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, called out the BBC’s awful reporting in a tweet. | | Where I live in Aotearoa New Zealand our state broadcasters, Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand frequently use dreadful BBC reports.
For example here are two BBC stories carried on RNZ this past fortnight here and here. They cover the deaths of three Jewish women in a terrorist attack in the occupied West Bank. The media should report such killings but there is no context whatever given for the illegal Jewish-only settlements at the heart of the occupied West Bank, Israel’s military occupation across all Palestine, the daily ritual humiliation and debasement of Palestinians or its racist apartheid policies towards Palestinians – or as Israeli human rights groups B’Tselem describes it “A regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea: This is apartheid”
Neither are there Palestinian voices in the above reports – they are typically absent from most Middle East reporting, or at best muted, compared to extensive quoting from racist Israeli leaders.
The BBC is happy to report the “What?” but not the “Why?”
Needless to say the BBC has not provided any such sympathetic coverage for the many dozens of Palestinians killed by Israel this year – including at least 16 Palestinian children. To the BBC murdered Palestinian children are simply statistics.
Media outlets generally say they cannot ensure to cover all the complexities of the Middle East in every story and that people get a balanced view over time from their regular reporting.
But this is not true. Western audiences, often courtesy of the BBC, are subject to so much systematically-biased reporting that one survey in the UK some years ago showed as many people thought Palestinians were occupying Israel as the other way round!
Unlike their reporting on the Russian invasion of Ukraine for example, BBC reporting on the Middle East leaves people confused and ready to blame both sides equally for the murder and mayhem unleashed by Israel on Palestinians and Palestinian resistance to Israeli military occupation.
Appalling reporting from the likes of the BBC is one of the reasons groups such as MLN have a crucial role to play in breaking through the fog of disinformation about Palestine. | |  | | | John Minto welcomed everyone to the webinar in Maori language and introduced the topic of ‘Normalizing Israel: Whose Agenda?’ He noted the growing gap between the views of people and governments on the issue of Palestine, with people increasingly supportive of the Palestinian struggle while governments remain supportive of Israel. Minto highlighted the hypocrisy of Western governments in condemning Russia's invasion and occupation of Ukraine but turning a blind eye to Israel's occupation and illegal settlements in Palestine. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| He discussed the Abraham Accords, a strategy by the US and Israel to normalize relations with Arab states in exchange for security, political and economic benefits. Despite this, the people of these countries remain supportive of Palestine.
Dr. Elham Fakhro discussed the trajectory of normalization specifically with the Gulf States, with a focus on the Abraham Accords. These Accords are significant as they mark a break from the past and the general broad history of collective Arab solidarity with the Palestinians, although there were two notable exceptions throughout history, Egypt and Jordan. Their peace agreements were done to recover lost territory, they were built around the idea of a cold peace. The UAE and Israel's peace agreement is built around the idea of a warm embrace of Israel, between two countries who have never been at war with each other, which is a departure from previous peace agreements. The Accords mark a crisis not only for the Palestinians but also a crisis of governance within the Gulf States and showcases a crisis of unrepresentative governance within the Gulf States. The agreements rest on the bedrock of infrastructure that is fundamentally repressive. | | Despite mobilization against normalization, there are factors beyond a single transaction that are driving the Gulf States to enter into the agreements, such as a shared threat perception from Iran and China and need for greater security guarantees from Israel given that the US is planning to take a kind of a back seat in the region. Elham added that what is being seen now, is a triangulation taking place, with the US playing this intermediary role and not just encouraging normalization between the Gulf States and Israel, but also air and missile defense cooperation between Israel and the states that are not involved in the Accords. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| One of the main things that have happened since the enactments of the Abraham Accords is moving Israel from the European zone of command to CENTCOM,where it's in the same grouping as the rest of the Arab states, the Gulf States and others. This move facilitates all kinds of defense cooperation between the Arab states and Israel, even when there's no normalization. Elham discussed the ways in which civil society in Gulf States is perceived as a threat and how efforts have been made to subdue it, either through co-option or repressive mechanisms. She also agreed that the UAE and Bahrain have increasingly viewed Israel as an attractive model to emulate in terms of the management of internal dissent and external security, and have attempted to procure Israeli technology, which has been facilitated by normalization. There's also the factor of reputational redemption as both have used their new relationship with Israel to portray themselves as liberal, tolerant, particularly towards a western audience that has criticized them for their human rights records in the past. Elham notes that Saudi Arabia remains committed to the peace initiative however, has been seeking security guarantees and nuclear assistance from the US in exchange for normalization.
Dr. Sharri Plonski discussed Israel's infrastructural plans to develop trade and transit corridors across the Middle East and how it has been extending its access to global, financial, technological, diplomatic, and security channels, making Israel seem as a necessary and unchallengeable partner. She focused on the HaEmek railway, which was inaugurated in2016 and travels 65 kilometers from Haifa port terminals to the Jordanian border, intentionally disassociated from the spectacular modes of violence happening in Gaza or the West Bank or even closer to home in Palestinian villages within the green line, only a few miles from the train. Despite seeming innocuous, Dr. Plonski argued that the train is part of a larger project to normalize Israel and remove, erase and replace Palestine and Projects that orchestrate and underwrite Israel's Mobility are always very much intimately tied to projects that underwrite Palestinian immobility. She stated that historically violence is an essential requirement to make things move, even if you can't see it. And violence accumulates in these projects and then is reproduced embedded naturalized and normalized through them. Dr. Plonski also noted the deep nostalgic tinge to the imagined landscape of normalcy, which she compared to colonial nostalgia. Sharri highlighted three main points in response to the questions asked. Firstly, she emphasized that Palestinians have agency in their struggle for liberation and have been actively disrupting the normalization project seeking to erase Palestine.Secondly, she pointed out that violence against Palestinians is not limited to the West Bank, but also in Gaza where destruction and infrastructural damage is frequent. Thirdly, Sharri discussed the normalization project as not just a government-to-government issue, but also involving private operators and conglomerates. She mentioned the importance of agrotech and agroconglomerates in the re-circulation of Gulf capital in the region. | | Chandra Muzaffar talked about the normalization of relations with Israel and how it is linked with infrastructure development, which has a conscious plan to exclude Palestine. He mentioned two possible trends that may impact normalization: the success of normalization and recognition of Israel by more countries, which would weaken the Palestinian cause and isolate Palestine further; and the dichotomy between elites and people's commitment to Palestine, with a clear divide developing between the two. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Chandra believed that the elites are not responding to the people's feelings, and this could have an effect on the push for normalization. Despite efforts to force countries to recognize Israel, the people's opposition may prevent the success of normalization.
Chandra added to the discussion on sanctions against Syria, noting the growing number of demonstrations in the US by church groups calling for the lifting of the sanctions. He hoped that momentum will be maintained and that other groups will join the struggle. Chandra also agreed with Professor Junaid that Imran Khan is targeted because of his clear support for Palestine and the Palestinian people. He believed that the successor failure of the popular movement in Pakistan will have an immense impact on other movements around the world. Chandra criticized the media, both mainstream and alternative, for not providing adequate coverage of the situation in Pakistan and for failing to address the fundamental dimensions of major challenges.
Ilan Pappe, discussed the need for caution in interpreting recent developments in Iran and Saudi Arabia and the potential impact of international, regional, and local actors on the issue of Palestine. He also emphasized the need to expand the discourse on Israel and Palestine beyond the bubble of like-minded individuals and to educate people about the settler colonial nature of the situation. Pappe argued that the rise of extreme right-wing politics in Israel is due in part to normalization with Arab regimes, and that it is important not to give up on the Arab and Muslim world in the face of increasing normalization agreements with Israel.
John Minto expressed his appreciation for the insights shared during the discussion, particularly the observation that the current era is a non-solution era. He thanked everyone for their contributions. Minto praised Elham and Sharri's presentations, as stimulating and which gave a clear picture of the situation with no frills attached. He concluded by thanking everyone involved and wished them a lovely day or night,depending on their location. | |
RECONCILING SAUDI ARABIA AND IRAN: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CHINA EFFORT |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| It would be wrong to view the restoration of relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran as something that happened suddenly. Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, ties between the two important Muslim neighbours have been strained. For the Saudi elite the Revolution was not only anti-monarchical but also a boost to the Shia sect within Islam. For the Iranian revolutionaries, Saudi opposition was motivated largely by its intimate relationship to American and other Western elites and their interests. This strained relationship sank to its nadir in 2016 when a respected Shia cleric, Nimr al-Nimr, was executed by the Sunni Saudi authorities. Shia communities all over West Asia and even in Central Asia were deeply upset by this callous deed.
The execution reinforced the negative image of the Saudi government. The image was further tarnished by the dastardly murder of Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi by killers allegedly linked to the apex of Saudi society. Western elites and human rights activists were aghast at the cruel barbarity of the assassination. A chasm of mistrust was now developing between the West and Saudi Arabia. In the midst of all this, the US, mainly for commercial reasons, sought to increase its own oil output through fracking of shale rock and therefore indirectly, reduced the significance of Saudi oil in the global market. As a result of all these and other developments, the Saudi elite in the last two or three years was beginning to feel that it is being pushed into a corner.
Ironically, the Iranian leadership was also beginning to feel isolated. When the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was agreed upon by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, on the one hand, and the Iranian government, on the other, in April 2015, the Iranian people were hopeful that with financial and economic sanctions lifted, investments will flow into the land and the country would emerge as a vibrant actor in the regional and global arena. However, that hope was short-lived as a new US president, Donald Trump, torpedoed the JCPOA in 2018 mainly because of pressure from Israel. Iran's economic woes became even more severe and undermined its political stability and weakened its social cohesiveness. Iran's internal crisis was further compounded by an incompetent leadership that lacked rapport with the ordinary masses.
Given the colossal challenges facing the Saudi and Iranian governments, they were impelled to reach out to one another so that their mutual antagonism would not further emasculate their waning strength. China's readiness to bring the two countries together was, given the circumstances, a bonanza. Only a nation with the gravitas of China could have played the role of mediator. The US’s decades old antagonism towards Iran precluded any such role for her.
Russia with ties to both the adversaries could have stepped in except that its war in Ukraine was consuming all its energies. China not only has good relations with both countries but also imports huge quantities of oil from Iran and Saudi Arabia. More importantly, China appreciates the fact that neither country joined the US orchestrated bandwagon to condemn China for its alleged persecution of the Uighur Muslim minority in Sinkiang province. Trying to reconcile the two Muslim adversaries was perhaps China’s way of saying ‘thank you’ to them.
However, China’s role, significant as it is, does not hold the key to genuine restoration of ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is the two countries themselves that will determine the success or failure of the Chinese effort. For a start, if they can help to end a number of conflicts in the region purportedly linked to the two protagonists, it would be a good sign. It is said that current conflicts in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Yemen, some of which are violent, are fomented by either Saudi Arabia or Iran. Of course, other actors from inside and outside the region are also involved.
A conflict which has drawn both sides is the one in Yemen. The formal government is supported by the Saudi elite while rebels opposed to it, the Houthis, are reportedly sustained by the Iranian authorities. According to the United Nations (UN), a hundred and fifty thousand Yemenis have lost their lives in the 9 year conflict. Thousands of others have also perished as a result of famine and disease. If the Saudi-Iran thaw, engineered by China, can lead to the resolution of the Yemen conflict in the immediate future, a lot of peace-loving people all over the world will rejoice.
Though a variety of forces and factors are intertwined in the Yemen conflict, as in each and every one of the other conflicts, there is an underlying cause to all of them which is related to the one most perennial and persistent dichotomy within the Muslim world. This is the Sunni-Shia dichotomy which we have alluded to. It arose from a disagreement over who should lead the Muslim community ( Ummah) when the Prophet Muhammad ( Peace be Upon Him) died in 632. Though one of the contenders, Abu Bakr, the Prophet’s father-in-law was chosen as the Caliph, supporters of the other contender, Ali ibn-Talib, the Prophet’s son-in-law, continued to hold on to the belief that he was the rightful leader and felt marginalised. Their sense of marginalisation became even more severe when they witnessed what they alleged were serious transgressions of the faith and the Islamic struggle for justice occurring during the rule of successors of the Caliph Abu Bakr, particularly Caliph Yazid.
Their legitimate frustrations set against the determined arrogance of the ruling Caliph and his followers reached its zenith in a famous confrontation at the battle of Karbala in 680. In that battle, the better equipped and numerically stronger Caliph Yazid and his supporters prevailed. The dissenters led by Ali’s son, Hussein ,and many other members of the Prophet’s family were mercilessly massacred. That episode known as Ashura is observed by Muslims till today, especially Shias, as a shining instance of human beings defending fundamental principles of justice and truth against great odds embodied in power and position. Ashura became the spiritual and moral foundation of Shia opposition to the majority Sunnis. Over the centuries the Shia minority sect acquired doctrinal and ritualistic features that distinguished Shias from the Sunnis. It must be emphasised nonetheless that the central characteristics of Islam.... belief in the Oneness of God; recognition of Muhammad as the last of God’s Prophets; adherence to the Quranic message as guidance in this transient life; and the acceptance of divine judgement in the hereafter ....... continued to bind Sunnis and Shias within the same religious community.
But the bond emanating from these characteristics sometimes succumbed to the pulls and pressures of politics and power and of personalities and vested interests who chose to give greater significance to the differences that separated Sunnis from Shias than their similarities. This is why right through the centuries it has been difficult to bridge the Sunni-Shia chasm. Be that as it may, there have been numerous attempts to bring Sunnis and Shias together. And there have been moments when they have forged strong bonds in facing common challenges or in pursuing shared
goals.
I initiated a modest move in 2013 through my NGO, JUST, to get the two groups to adopt a common position on a matter of grave concern to both. The former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohammad, and the former President of Iran, Muhammad Khatami, were persuaded to issue a joint appeal to Sunnis and Shias to stop killing one another as inter-sectarian violence was rife at that time in some parts of the Muslim world. There was very little media coverage on the Mahathir-Khatami appeal. Hardly any Muslim leader of stature responded. Even Muslim civil society groups gave scant attention to the plea from the two leaders. In other words, a noble call to end fighting fell on deaf ears.
The China initiative on Saudi-Iran ties is different in its approach. It focuses on inter-state relations. It hopes that state actors will be prepared to use state power to reduce and even eliminate inter-state animosities. At some point down the road, the three states, Saudi Arabia, Iran and China and other states will have to deal with the ramifications of the Sunni-Shia dichotomy.
For the time being let us turn to some of the opposition to the Saudi-Iran peace plan. The loudest denunciation of the plan has come from the Israeli government. Israel fears that the plan will work against Israel’s machinations in the region.
Israel is hell-bent on isolating Iran and mobilising all the Arab states in the region against Iran. Towards this end, it has not only exploited the Sunni-Shia dichotomy but also the Arab-Persian division since Iran is the only Persian state in the Arab world.
Israel sees Iran as a threat to not only its existence, but also to the whole of West Asia since it, (Iran) according to Israel, is determined to build and use a nuclear bomb. Incidentally, Israel is the only state in the region that possesses nuclear bombs. Besides, Iran has repeatedly emphasised that it will not manufacture or deploy a nuclear bomb because it is against Islamic teachings.
If the Iran-Saudi accord makes it difficult to isolate Iran, it is inimical to Israel’s ambitions for yet another reason. As a way of strengthening its position in its Arab neighbourhood and within the Muslim world, Israel has always wanted to establish formal diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. That has become more problematic now that Saudi Arabia and Iran have come together. It is significant that Saudi Arabia has also made it clear that it will not recognise Israel as long as it does not recognise Palestine’s right to nationhood and acknowledges the right of Palestinians to return to their homeland. It is another way of saying that Saudi Arabia will not do what other Arab states such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain have done in recent times in the name of implementing the so-called Abraham Accords.
If any other nation is even more apprehensive of the Saudi-Iran bid to reconcile through China’s initiative, it would be the United States of America. It is only too apparent that China has become a major actor in West Asia. It is amazing that it has succeeded to bring the US’s closest friend in the region next to Israel and its furthest foe in West Asia together through an accord and in the process enhanced its role as a peace mediator. Indeed, a peace mediator is a role that befits the only nation in human history that has emerged as a global power through relatively peaceful means, without engaging in wars and committing wanton violence.
Perhaps it is in this role as a peacemaker that China may be able to end the protracted conflict between Israel, on the one hand, and Palestine and other Arab states, on the other. Perhaps this is how Palestinians will be able to exercise their right of self-determination and regain their dignity as a nation---- something which was never possible as long as the region was under US hegemony.
This is why China’s role in restoring Saudi- Iran ties may well be the harbinger of a new dawn in West Asia and a new era in international relations. | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | The Politics of Normalization is a term that will be familiar with many academics and activists who continue to speak up about the oppression and persecution faced by the people of Palestine under Israeli occupation.
The concept is a simple one; to normalize relationships on a wide socio-economic level to mitigate any further push backs against the Israeli state’s Apartheid regime. The method to achieving this goal however is both subtle and obnoxious in its insidiousness.
The most significant attempt of Normalization began in 2017 when the Arab Israeli alliance emerged in November of that year, normalizing ties between Israel and various Gulf States as a formal alliance against the perceived threat of Iran. The usual suspects were present, with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman forming the Gulf Cooperation Council.
2020 was the year when the Israeli state made another push for normalization when they met with the Sovereignty Council of Sudan in Uganda, where they agreed to normalization and allowed for air travel through Ugandan airspace for Israeli commercial planes. The UAE signed the Abraham accords in August of the same year, followed by Sudan,Bahrain and Morocco.
The Normalization agreements have very common elements. Under the pretense and promise of achieving peace, stability, and economic security, as well as fruitful economic trade agreements, open travel routes to promote tourism and access to Israeli markets; all that was asked for in exchange was that they asked them to recognize the Israeli state and give overt approval for the Zionist state’s actions. Israel is also at present building up its infrastructural network, to also connect and become an integral part of logistic infrastructure in the Middle East, positioning itself to be a core component of trade and economy on an inter-regional level.
One could also posit that this strategy is part of a larger strategy to counter the efforts of China to establish their own economic infrastructure project across the continent of Asia. This wouldn’t be too much of a far-off conjecture, considering that Israel serves as a proxy power in the region for the hegemonic interests of the United States of America.
So that is ultimately the strategy. Gather as many friends as possible, enticing with bribes, favors and promises, to de-legitimize the Palestinian struggle. Schoolyard bullying on a larger scale. This crude tactic however doesn’t seem to be having a significant impact that they were hoping for, and the reason for it is transparent.
********* For all the cunning maneuvering that the Israeli administration could muster, the persistent problem to these plans is that they constantly fail to consider the people.
Despite the seeming willingness of various heads of states who have been enticed by the Israeli promise, the sentiment on the people level stands in direct stark contrast to the elites that claim to represent their country. This major disconnect has to do with the fact that in general, the wider population of these countries are more well-informed than ever-before, in no small part due to on-going efforts of groups such as the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) who continue to speak out and inform the world about the unabashed truth about the realities of the Palestinian struggle.
The fact is, now more than ever before, the machinations of the Israeli state are transparent and for all to see. Israel’s normalization strategy may find success among the elites and those in position of authority who only see this as a means to their own ends, but it does not find much purchase among the common people who, in their collective voice, are able to pressure and hold their leaders accountable. Many have refused to compromise their soul and collective integrity. At its core, the demand and acceptance for Normalization is one that is devoid of any sense of compassion, empathy and justice. It reflects the morally bankrupt soul that is the Israeli administration.
This means something more damning for the Zionist oppressors. That they are more adamant and obsessed at influencing public perception, from a top-down approach, rather than genuinely reflect on a conscientious level, about its actions towards the Palestinians, means that there is a vast disconnect of their humanity. This has perhaps been due to generations upon generations of culturally cultivated a morality, and thus their own internal “normalization” of the situation they find themselves in.
If one can choose to conceive the idea of how to make “okay” the oppression and persecution of the Palestinian people buying favors and loyalties, what does that say of its overall moral character.
In stark contrast to this however, this most likely explains why the progress of the Normalization efforts have not taken root in places such as Indonesia, which boasts the largest Muslim population in the world. Its people are dynamically informed,vocally political, and very much morally grounded in the principles they identify with, having shared a common history of colonial rule. The oppression and abuse that the Israeli settlers, under the approval of the Zionist Israeli administration, handed out to the Palestinians, goes against the moral fabric of societies like Indonesia.
Pakistan is another example, where its political elites may be enticed to follow the trend of Normalization, but with the strong voice of its own people calling against it,the counterbalance has worked as a form of accountability measure to make those in power hesitant, lest it risks misrepresenting the people it seeks to govern peacefully, which will ultimately put their own interests in danger.
This power of the people, in solidarity with the Palestinian cause, is the greatest victory of the Palestinian struggle and should be celebrated.
This is why we continue to do our part in this struggle.
We must also remember that this struggle is a struggle for history.
Another insidious aspect of Normalization is the a front it poses to the history of the Palestinian people who had long resided as the indigenous people of the land of Palestine before it was so unceremoniously and unempathetically divided up as a result of the 1917 Balfour declaration. There have been so many communities displaced, so many historical homes and villages razed to the ground to make way for Israeli settlers. Normalization is just part of the plan to erase the Palestinians from history, to make them forgotten, burying Israeli sins, where they hope no one will dig up and show the ugliness of their transgressions.
We at the Movement for the Liberation from Nakba (MLN) stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people, not just to speak out against the oppression of the Israeli Apartheid regime. We want to ensure that the history of Palestine endures, as how the people have endured for all this time. We want to tell the stories, the micro histories that have fallen through the cracks due to the attempts of the Zionists to try and eradicate them. This is our mission going forward.
Through the preservation of history, we will endure and find our victory. |
|
|
|
|
|
