Several weeks
ago,
Dutch King Willem-Alexander made a formal apology for the Netherlands’
250-year-long involvement in the slave trade of his country’s dark colonial
history. “On this day that we remember the Dutch history of slavery, I ask
forgiveness for this crime against humanity,” the king said, according to
a study commissioned by the Dutch government last month, the House of Orange,
the reigning house of the Netherlands, would owe the equivalent of $600 million
to the colonies it governed between 1675 and 1770. The same study also shows
that the House of Orange was directly involved in the slave trade in the
Atlantic.
اضافة اعلان
The Netherlands
was not the only European country to have a controversial colonial past and
many historians would argue that other countries in the old continent had an
even more sinister record in Africa, South America, the Middle East, and Asia.
It will not
change history, but it will contribute to making final peace
To make an
apology for past crimes is a symbolic but important gesture. It opens the way
for reconciling the colonial country’s people with their past. But more
importantly it sends a message to those who were oppressed that, by the end of
the day, a mea culpa, if not a mea maxima culpa, which is the least to be
expected, had finally been made. It will not change history, but may somehow
contribute to making final peace with the past for both the colonizer and the
colonized.
UK passes law
that outlaws BDSWhile the Dutch
monarch was taking this historic step, the UK parliament passed a law recently
that outlaws BDS, the pro-Palestinian movement that calls for the boycott,
divestment, and sanctions against
Israel for failing to comply with international law, in universities and councils. The bill, which was opposed by
lawmakers from both the ruling Conservatives and opposition Labor parties,
prevents Britain’s public bodies from “adopting their own foreign policy” by
boycotting Israel or companies that trade with it. The bill passed by 268 to 70
votes.
Proposed by
Michael Gove, the minister in charge of local government, he said that it
seeks to combat the
BDS anti-Israel movement, arguing that such initiatives are
commonly accompanied by anti-Semitic discourse.
Gove added that
the bill “affirms the important principle that UK foreign policy is a matter
for the UK government. It ensures local authorities focus their efforts on
serving residents, not directing their resources inefficiently. And critically
it protects minorities, especially Jewish communities, against campaigns that
harm community cohesion and fuel anti-Semitism.”
Perhaps a symbolic mea culpa to the Palestinians, while warranted, may take a few more years to come through. But the UK can do more to lessen the plight of the Palestinians than to embolden an extremist government in Israel that openly seeks to crush any hope for a peaceful settlement in the Occupied Territories and denies the Palestinians a belated path to independence.
It is
important to note that not even the US, at the Federal level, had passed such a
law and neither did Canada or any other European country.
Irony
Ironically,
the bill extends the ban on boycotts beyond
Israel’s internationally-recognized borders to "the occupied Palestinian territories" and "the
occupied Golan Heights.” During the debate, Alicia Kearns, the Conservative
chair of the Commons' Foreign Affairs Committee, complained of its “conflation
of Israel and the occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories.” This “is
a departure from our foreign policy,” which recognizes the West Bank and East
Jerusalem as occupied and puts London in breach of its commitments, she stated.
Leaving Israel aside, critics argued that the bill infringes on people’s right to freedom of
expression. Those who voted against said that the bill was too vague and
“illiberal” and may hamper actions against other countries like China. Among
those opposed to the bill were Jewish youth groups who called it an attempt to
use legislation to “clamp down on free speech” and insist the bill “
will notmake Jews safer.” Critics said the bill gives Israel “protective shield” over
crimes.
A ‘dreadful’
proposal
Chris Doyle,
director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, said that the
“dreadful” proposed legislation would curtail local democracy in the UK and
strip the ability of public bodies to practice due diligence.
While the debate
was taking place in the House of Common,
Israel launched its biggest raid in
almost two decades
against the Jenin refugee camp, which was condemned by Arab
countries as well as the UN and criticized by the UK for the use of excessive
force against civilians.
While it is for
the British public to decide how far that bill goes in curtailing freedom of
speech and democratic traditions in one of the oldest democracies in the world,
it is important to note two things: One, Britain’s direct historic involvement
in the decades old
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and second, the contrast
between what the BDS movement is doing and what the Anti-Apartheid Movement
(AAM) against South Africa, of which Britain played a crucial part, had done in
the past.
British history
in South Africa
British history
in South Africa is as controversial as that of its mandate over Palestine in
the wake of the First World War. But it is interesting to note that while the
AAM movement was born in Britain and became at the center of the
international movement opposing the South African apartheid system and
supporting South Africa's Non-White population, one wonders how that it is
different from what the BDS movement is doing.
To make an apology for past crimes is a symbolic but important gesture. It opens the way for reconciling the colonial country’s people with their past. But more importantly it sends a message to those who were oppressed that, by the end of the day, a mea culpa, if not a mea maxima culpa, which is the least to be expected, had finally been made. It will not change history, but may somehow contribute to making final peace with the past for both the colonizer and the colonized.
In 2017, then British
Prime Minister Theresa May said she would “absolutely not” apologize for the
1917 Balfour Declaration which paved the way for the establishment of the “most
extraordinary”
state of Israel, while noting that the document’s vision of
Jewish-Arab coexistence remained “unfinished business.”
It may take a few
more years to come through
Perhaps a
symbolic mea culpa to the Palestinians, while warranted, may take a few more
years to come through. But the UK can do more to lessen the plight of the
Palestinians than to embolden an
extremist government in Israel that openly
seeks to crush any hope for a peaceful settlement in the Occupied Territories
and denies the Palestinians a belated path to independence.
Osama Al Sharif
is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
