Gibson Nyikadzino Correspondent
Those conversant with Middle-Eastern religious history are alive to the view that the world over, Jews suffered racism in Europe and that is where they were subjected to regular discrimination.
The only place Jews were neither discriminated nor racially abused was in the Arab world.
During different historical epochs, Jews found more peace and kind hearted embraces from the Arabs than among the Christians who were strongly anti-Semitic.
Christian anti-Semitism in Europe massacred millions of Jews.
Ironically, the price of those historical atrocities has not been paid for by European Christian countries, but by the very people, Arabs among them Palestinians, who carry no blemish of atrocities against Jews.
Palestinians never persecuted Jews.
British politician George Galloway shares the same view in his submissions that, for centuries, Jews felt safer from the 16th century in Morocco and along the North African coast as they fled European Christian anti-Semitism.
The Zionist idea of what Israel is today is a product of falsified historical events.
The Israel of today was created in 1917 by the British under the Balfour Declaration which was a statement of British support “for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” and redrawing the Palestinian territory.
Remember, one should never trust the British with a map!
Jews who accepted the idea behind the formation of the state of Israel in Palestinian territory were few radicalised elements who Britain wanted to appease to cover for the footprinted Christian anti-Semitism that had occurred previously.
It is not Britain and Israel who alone are guilty, the US is also a key player in this Palestinian subjugation.
The contents of the US’ 1776 Declaration of Independence do not serve the truths it represents. A critical reading of the declaration gives an impression that what the US wants nationally should be translated for other citizens fighting for justice and freedom abroad.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” reads the 1776 declaration.
As part of its foreign policy, the US has used its founding declaration as a platform to help other nations access these unalienable rights among them “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
This has not been the case when it comes to the Palestinians who have been fighting for their rights, liberty and a pursuit of happiness in the face of Israeli occupation.
The ‘axis of evil’ that the US, Britain and Israel exhibit tries to whitewash history and cover up some dirty historical trails.
In doing so, over the past five decades, the US has vetoed 53 United Nations resolutions against Israel, the bulk of them including the inhumane treatment of Palestinians.
Therefore, the triad of the US, Britain and Israel equally shares a place in the dock for trampling Palestinian rights through occupation, apartheid, violence and racism as new, repugnant forms of fascism.
This is so because from the onset, the Jews had no right to take Palestinian land. Their occupation of Palestine was aided by bizarre narratives which have displaced the statehood of Palestinians in desiring to be a member of all nations.
In masterpieces of western propaganda against Palestinian rights, Israeli settlers have been depicted as heroes.
Key questions about whether Palestine should be given statehood need to be answered for them to enjoy their “unalienable rights.”
When it comes to Palestinian statehood, the first thing to understand is that the Jews are in Palestine as placation for the sins of Christian anti-Semites.
To understand Palestinian statehood, it is to be derived from the Montevideo Convention (1933) in which a state needs to meet four key areas to qualify for such.
The four components to fulfil the statehood criteria the presence of a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into diplomatic relations.
In view of this convention, state recognition is both a legal and political process.
For Palestine, the criteria to statehood is legally fulfilled without contradiction.
More so, Palestine has also been entering into diplomatic relations with other states and has been recognised as one.
The country has a permanent population and a defined territory. It has a population of about four million inhabitants whose territory has been there before and after 1948 when the British helped create the state of Israel.
A 2012 resolution to recognise Palestine as an observer non-member state was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), it led the Vatican since then, initiate a de facto recognition of the Arab state.
In 2016, a Vatican-Palestine Treaty was “a recognition that the state exists”. To be just and progressive, Sweden raised the anger of the European Union in October 2014 when it recognised Palestine’s existence and statehood.
About 135 UN member states recognise Palestine, that is nearly 70 percent of the total while by comparison, 163 of the UN’s 193 members recognise Israel.
All this comes after the Arab League admitted Palestine between 1974 and 1976.
Historically, the Arab League’s granting that status to Palestine means it is able to have its right to independence and statehood marked as a constant feature in the league’s structure, modus operandi, and political platform.
Not only has Palestine received recognition from other states in its quest to get statehood, it further joined, in 2015, the International Criminal Court (ICC) with the hope to increase and expand their fight on crimes against humanity by the Israeli government.
Israel, with the support of the US, has committed these atrocities in glaring view of the world.
Both the US and Israel are not members of the ICC and they disputed the court’s granting of Palestine membership on the basis that it is not within the mandate of the court to have that jurisdiction.
Israel and the US have a ‘valuable’ relationship that has existed for decades and it offers the US many things. Israel also has a strong leverage in America’s internal politics.
On the other hand, the oppressed and occupied Palestinians have remotely nothing comparable.
The Palestinian statehood recognition will only have moral justification and uprightness when the US and her allies pursue a different kind of politics by looking at affairs through the Montevideo Convention.
Giving Palestine recognition will also remove distrust among the Middle-Eastern countries whose hatred of the US is driven by its support of Israeli occupation.
On the other hand, while the African Union (AU) believes in global interdependence among states, it should also be guided by the internationalist solidarity movement that recognises the oppressed Palestinians.
There has to be judicious consensus amongst African countries in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian case.
The decision in July by the AU Commissioner to unilaterally grant Israel observer status should not dilute the view of Palestine recognition.
This came at a time Palestinians were hounded off their land by destructive bombardments. Of the AU’s member states, the majority object Israel’s illegal occupation, the unjust repression and annexation of Palestinian territory.
History should remember Africa as a friend of Palestine in the face of all these trials.
They are an innocent nation being repressed to which Africa’s hand should advocate for the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” for the Palestinians.
The US position on Palestinian statehood is racist because it wants to unconditionally swear allegiance to Israel in boasting anti-Palestinianism.