Once Again: Upholding the National State is the Basis for All
Translated from Arabic
Dr. Nasser Alkidwa
We, the Palestinian people, are proud of our national identity. We are a people rooted in the land and hold firm conviction in our role in the historic civilization of the region. We must remember and affirm that we are the indigenous people and the owners of this land for thousands of years. Yet, in spite of that, at the start of the 20th century, the Zionist movement, supported by the international regime at that time – the League of Nations, the British Mandate that included the Balfour Declaration [of 1917] – succeeded in imposing the idea of establishing a Jewish national home in Palestine. This was followed, in the late 1940s, by the United Nations, as a representative body of the international community after the Second World War, adopting the idea of partitioning Palestine into two states with an economic union between them and a special international regime for Jerusalem. Israel was declared “on the strength” of the Partition resolution, and the Arab-Israeli war erupted. After the war, Israel occupied half of the lands allocated by UN General Assembly resolution 181 (II) for the Arab state (the Partition resolution); thus Israel completed its first illegal annexation in the context of its first historical lie – acceptance of the Partition resolution despite Palestinian and Arab rejection of it. About a year later, Israel began the process of annexing Jerusalem, West first, in another violation of UN resolutions 181(II) and 194 (III).
Al-Nakba [The Catastrophe] thus befell the Palestinian people, their national entity was overtaken, and almost half were uprooted from their lands and homes. Our people were forcibly and cruelly deprived of their right to self-determination and national independence in their natural state. The remainder of the Palestinian territory came under the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in the West Bank and Egyptian administration in the Gaza Strip. Following the 1967 war, Israel occupied what remained of historic Palestine, and immediately began completing its annexation of Jerusalem by expanding the borders of the East Jerusalem municipality and imposing its law over the expanded municipal borders. After only a few years, Israel began colonizing the territory in what may be deemed the settler colonialism of our lands – employing the same methods and tactics that it used in the Palestinian territory during the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, in what became Israel, with the fundamental difference this time of it being in grave violation of the international laws.
With the rise of the Palestinian national movement, and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the sole, legitimate political representative of the Palestinian people, work began to restore the Palestinian entity on the ground, first in 1974, through the Ten Point Program or the establishment of the Palestinian Authority Program over any part of Palestinian territory that is liberated and, later in 1988, through the Declaration of Independence by the Palestinian National Council (PNC), in exercise of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. The Declaration of Independence was based on the natural and historical right of the Palestinian people, and on international legitimacy, specifically UN resolution 181(II) as the legal basis of the State of Palestine, and in practical terms, the political program adopted by the PNC accepted UN Security Council resolution 242 and the 1967 borders as the political basis defining the borders of the State. This emerged in response to the general international position with regard to the 1967 territories, that it is Palestinian land, that Israel should not colonize, and an independent Palestinian state must be formed. The majority of the world’s states responded to the Declaration and recognized the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders, despite it being under [Israeli] occupation.
Later came the Madrid Peace Conference then the Oslo Agreement between the PLO and the government of Israel, which essentially adopted the idea of interim autonomy and negotiation on a final status agreement between the two sides. In fact, this began to be implemented: the Palestinian national movement returned to the homeland and the process to establish the Palestinian Authority started. Effective work for implementation did not last long: first Yitzhak Rabin then Yasser Arafat were assassinated. The Israeli extremist right-wing worked to reverse the Oslo Accords, accelerating settler colonialism and succeeding in imposing conditions in which Israel controls all aspects of Palestinian life, nullifying anything to do with self-government, in addition to continuing long after the agreed-upon five years [interim period lapsed]. They also succeeded in deterring a political settlement and Palestinian national independence in the State of Palestine.
U.S. President Trump recently issued the so-called “Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and the Israeli People.” The “Vision” is based on the premise that the entirety of the land is Israeli – the notion of greater Israel, which denies, ipso facto, Palestinian national existence and rights, and attempts to find possible solutions for the “Palestinian inhabitants” in a scattered entity that they can call a state – and only if they meet numerous additional and impossible conditions. The Vision, of course, undertakes to legitimize Israeli settlements and recognizes the possibility of Israel annexing about 30% of the West Bank. Consequently, the Israeli Prime Minister began a campaign of threats and preparations to annex swathes of Palestinian territory. In fact, he is preparing Israel’s fourth annexation, following the annexation of half of the lands allocated for the Arab State in the UN Partition Plan, the annexation of Jerusalem in various stages, and the Syrian Golan Heights.
Israel, or the Israeli extremist right-wing, supported by the American evangelical extremist right-wing, seeks to seize everything, all of the land, with the fewest possible number of Palestinians. The internal logic for Trump’s Vision seems to point in the same direction, paving the way to eliminate, albeit gradually, numbers of Palestinians as mere “inhabitants.” The goal and strategy of the ruling Israeli right-wing, supported by a broader segment of Israelis, is to seize most or all of the land and preserve the “Jewish nature” of the State. This criminal goal is being pursued in spite of the substantial and successive concessions made by the Palestinian side – a criminal goal that nullifies the objective of a peaceful or negotiated settlement and attempts to seize the entirety rather than divide it into two states.
Confronting this threat with the most effective Palestinian strategy is the central task now before the Palestinian people and the Palestinian national movement, essential to achieving the Palestinian national goal. This writer believes that the only logical national strategy is to preserve and strengthen the national identity, national rights and national state, and to defend the land against settler colonialism. That is: to uphold the existing State of Palestine, even if it is under occupation, and defend its land against settlements and settlers, as well as demand the lands of Palestine refugees, which encompass five and a half million dunums according to the documentation of the United Nations Conciliation Commission – with or without a negotiated settlement, as is the case at this stage.
Perhaps one of the biggest missteps of the Palestinian national movement after Oslo and during the period of the Authority's existence is the apparent acceptance of the idea that a political settlement will give the Palestinian people a state, and that Israel will grant the Palestinian people this state. This, of course, is a reversal of everything: history, facts, law and the accurate political position/reality. Until now, many Palestinian officials still maintain that it is necessary to work toward the “establishment” of a Palestinian state and, as a matter of course, through the negotiation process with Israel. In fact, this position constitutes the essence of the Palestinian discourse, as transcribed into an Arab and even international position. This must be corrected, and the Palestinian people and the Palestinian national movement must exit this cul-de-sac. Ironically, Trump's “Vision” and the threat of the annexation provides an opportunity to end the impasse: it will be universally acknowledged that any Israeli annexation would constitute an end to the negotiated settlement – an end to the so-called peace process, but not the abandonment of the internationally-supported Palestinian national goal for independence – an affirmation that the State of Palestine exists, its existence is not subject to negotiation, and the source of its legitimacy is the Palestinian people, not Israel. Moreover, it must be clear that any negotiation must be conditional on accepting what has been noted previously, that being the demarcation of the borders and the relationship between the two States.
At the same time, another misstep was to belittle settler colonialism in spite of it being contrary to a negotiated political solution. Some officials, for example, went along with the use of the term “unilateral acts” to describe settler colonialism, as well as the so-called Palestinian incitement. This absurdity must end, and we must understand that settler colonialism contradicts the Palestinian existence and aims to replace our people with Israeli settlers – for us; this is a matter of life or death. Settler colonialism constitutes a war crime according to international law; a whole system of international laws prohibit this settler colonialism and empower the Palestinian side to confront and defeat it as a prelude to ending the occupation and achieving the national independence of the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital.
The aforementioned is not a departure from international legitimacy; it is rather in adherence to it. It is not a rejection of a negotiated settlement but rather demands that negotiation be on a clear basis and with a specific goal, not a continuation of the futility that we have endured for many years. Can this now be called a “two-state solution?” I think not, at least not in the sense that this term is now associated with what is considered a failed peace process and more importantly, to what appears to be the requirement of a Palestinian state to be negotiated and accepted by Israel. In any case, it is not imperative for the Palestinian people and their national movement, when defining their central national goal, to present a vision of a political solution, which is of separate importance. Our duty is Palestinian rights, the existence of the State of Palestine, and the goal of national independence in this State.
Is there another logical central national objective for the Palestinian people and their national movement? This does not appear to be a good question as the national program should be preserved and any change has to follow certain processes and meet with national consensus or very broad acceptance. Due to some confusion, however, some discussion might be useful. A Palestinian group that has its presence and logic calls for liberating all of Palestine – replacing the Zionist entity with a democratic structure. Despite the logic of this proposition, the possibility of its achievement appears to be very difficult, let alone the enormous losses this would precipitate on the level of the international community and the positions of influential states. In any case, it seems to me that it is logical even for the proponents of this proposal to align with the goal of national independence in the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders, and then let destiny run its course.
What is the main difference between the Palestinian central national goal and the goal of liberating the entire Palestinian soil? The primary difference is the unlimited international support for the central national goal and not just the complete absence of support for the latter but even serious hostility toward it. The significance of international law and international position must not be underestimated. It is true that the law in itself is not a guarantee for anything in the absence of the necessary balance of power, but it is a prerequisite for achieving that desired balance, which we must continue to strive to create, in addition to its protection of Palestinian rights and the obstacles it poses to Israeli plans.
Realistically speaking, there is no such thing as a “one-state solution” – one-state is established when one of the two sides completely wins and the other is subjugated. If the Palestinian side wins, it will be possible for it to establish a democratic state in all of Palestine, and if the Israeli side wins, it will be possible for it to establish a Jewish state on “Eretz Israel.” In both scenarios, there is no “solution” and, of course, not even a negotiated “compromise.”
Despite the foregoing, it must be noted that some voices call for one-state, albeit with great ambiguity, without offering any explanation. Would it be a binational one-state with equal rights for all citizens? Of course, this could not happen – neither now nor in the foreseeable future, and I think Trump's Vision has proven that this would be most disdainful to the Israeli side and its supporters. Even those voices that call for one-state acknowledge that it will take many years, perhaps decades. In fact, the reality is much more dire. In reality, this proposition, with or without intent, enables Israel to establish “Greater Israel” and begin the gradual elimination of the [Palestinian] population. In actuality, this would mean total Palestinian capitulation: abandoning national existence and national rights, in exchange for some individual rights that we all know will be vehemently obstructed and will not transpire. Moreover, from a Palestinian perspective the only immediate and concrete effect of this position, which basically eliminates the 1967 line, is the legitimization of settlements and settlers in the territory of the State of Palestine – a primary goal and pillar of Israeli political action in the last decades. An Israeli extremist could not ask for more! A Palestinian giving up his national rights and playing a role in legitimizing settler colonialism! That same extremist Israeli knows those rights will never be achieved, and the most likely probability is the expulsion of this Palestinian from his land for the benefit of the Jewish state.
Internationally, some foreign parties and individuals, including in Israel, suggest a similar argument – to whit, that any annexation destroys the two-state solution. What does this mean? Does “destruction of the two-state solution” mean destroying Palestine and destroying Israel? Of course not, to them it only means destroying Palestine. This is exactly why it must be unacceptable. Annexation abrogates the negotiated settlement, but it cannot expunge the national state of the Palestinian people because the rights of a people cannot be negated as long as the people are steadfast in upholding them.
This narrative ¬– that annexation destroys the two-state solution – reflects theories and hypotheses that what Israel is doing becomes an irreversible reality or even a fate that must be accepted and coexisted with. Why? Because they are Israelis? Why this defeatism and subordination under the guise of friendship for the Palestinian people? The Palestinian people insist that every Israeli measure that is illegal and unacceptable to them will remain so until reversed, as was always the case with previous colonizers. The Palestinian case is no exception. Some foreign “friends” of goodwill see the arguments for one-state as a solution to the problem to salve their consciences. On the one hand, this reflects a tacit acceptance, though not declared, that the land is for Israel and avoids direct conflict with Israel, at least at this stage. On the other hand, there is the moral imperative in the experience of the struggle in South Africa against “apartheid,” as if all just causes are the same. There are, of course, commonalities: both constitute a grave crime under international law, but there are considerable differences. Firstly, the whites in South Africa, even the racists among them, after 400 years became part of the people of South Africa. Secondly, the solution in South Africa was to dismantle the system of apartheid and establish the framework of a new democratic system for all. For the State of Palestine, the solution is to end the occupation, vanquish settler colonialism and the departure of settlers from our country, just like the colonizers who preceded them in other countries. It is even more startling when these foreign [friends] attempt to convince Palestinians that we are in a world in which the concept of state sovereignty has changed, in the sense that there is no need or justification for Palestinian insistence on exercising sovereignty in their own state. And worse, perhaps even attempt to convince Palestinians that the right to self-determination is an outdated concept. This is not only an insult to our patriotism and national rights as for all peoples of the world, but also an insult to the intelligence of the Palestinian people, under the assumption that they are completely naive.
Trump's Vision on this topic is a good example: “Self-determination is the hallmark of a nation. This Vision is intended to maximize self-determination while taking all relevant factors into account.” This is indeed ludicrous, but also inadvertently affirms that the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination is a real and realistic right that cannot be denied, avoided, or abandoned.
Some of our “friends” call for the two-state solution, but only if Israel gives the Palestinians their state “through negotiation.” Other “friends” declare that the solution is one-state – without any definition or clarification of any specific and real rights of the Palestinian people. Neither position challenges the Israeli narrative but accepts it in practice! Neither position challenges Israel’s actions, especially in the concept, context and implementation of its program of settler colonialism, which are deemed de facto in each of these paradigms. These two positions are thus definitively rejected by our people.
Finally, some claim that the position of the Palestinian citizenry, especially among the youth, has changed from one in favor of a two-state solution to that of one-state. The deception here is twofold. Firstly, in the confusion between a political settlement and ceaseless negotiations on the one hand, and national identity, statehood and patriotism on the other hand. Many have lost confidence in the so-called political settlement, but they have certainly not changed their position on the existence of the Palestinian state and Palestinian national rights. Secondly, one-state, without a definition or clarification, appears to be about a democratic state with equal rights for all, a goal that I think is moral and even noble. The problem, of course, is that it is not achievable given Israel's relentless, regressive and irrevocable position on this issue, and the opposing international position, as mentioned above.
Faced with all of the above, we, the Palestinian people, must steadfastly uphold our national identity, our national rights and our national state, and insist on an end to the occupation and defeat of settler colonialism. We must affirm that our national goal is to achieve national independence in the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital, along with restoring the rights of Palestine refugees, including their right to return, ownership and compensation.
In these dire circumstances, it is time for our people to affirm unity in support of our national program and central national goal, excise its shortcomings and properly reformulate it. This is only the starting point to achieve the national rights of our people and uphold our national cause.
