Upholding the Palestinian National Existence
Toward the
Independence and Sovereignty of the State of Palestine
Introduction
The Palestinian national existence – the existence of the State of Palestine – and Palestinian national rights have been subjected to a myriad of attacks. Israel has waged a multifaceted crusade that has reverted to the denial of the State of Palestine and Palestinian rights and attempted to impose the Israeli narrative regionally and globally to coerce a specific solution to the conflict. The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump is becoming comparable to the Israeli position, creating additional peril. Unfortunately, some Palestinian positions that deal lightly with the Consensus National Program, the core of which is the State of Palestine, whether intentionally or unintentionally undermine the primary objective. The Palestinian national existence, national program, and national goal, are of vital importance and must be the political and diplomatic starting point for internal national relations, Palestinian positions, international actions and alliances and negotiations – all pertinent to the substance and future of the Palestinian people and their cause. We must make every effort to promote deeper common understanding and allegiance to our national program, our central national goal and struggle to confront the Israeli war and prevent “muddling” among some Palestinians.
Historic Background
Throughout the centuries, the Palestinian people have been the indigenous people and sole proprietors of the land of Palestine – until the end of the First World War. At that time, as for other countries formerly ruled by the Turkish Empire, Palestine should have attained its independence. However, as we all know, this did not happen because of the colonialist project that aimed to appropriate Palestine to create a national home for the Jewish people, in furtherance of the primary goal of the Zionist movement.
– The process officially began with the publication of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, followed by the formalization of the British Mandate for Palestine (that included provisions of the Declaration) by the League of Nations in violation of Article 22 of its Covenant. The Article stated that “(C)ertain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire reached a stage where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory.”
– Thus, the colonialist idea was to subvert the national existence and rights of the Palestinian people, particularly the right to self-determination. While recognizing the civil and religious rights of the local communities, it designated Palestine for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people.”
– The Palestinian people opposed these measures and resisted both the British Mandate and accelerating Jewish colonization, remaining steadfastly committed to their national rights. The British, at times, perceived the idea of the civil and religious rights of communities as unrealistic in light of its rejection by the Palestinian people. Consequently, British policy was adjusted as reflected in the report of the Peel Commission of 1937, recommending partition into two states.
– In 1947, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 181 (II) to partition Palestine into two states: one Arab, the other Jewish, with an economic union between the two. Jerusalem would be designated as a corpus separatum (under an international regime). Palestinians and Arabs rejected the resolution based on historical injustices toward the Palestinian people. Though initially accepted by the Jewish side, they immediately violated the resolution, occupying half of the land allocated for the Arab State. Nearly a year and a half after its establishment, Israel moved its capital to West Jerusalem, which it had also occupied.
– As a result of the 1948 war and the establishment of Israel, one-half of the Palestinian population was uprooted, becoming refugees in what remained of Palestine and in neighboring countries. The West Bank became part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and the Gaza Strip came under Egyptian administration. The Palestinian entity and unified national existence, let alone independence, ceased.
– The contemporary Palestinian revolution began in 1965, with the establishment of Fatah (the Palestinian National Liberation Movement). The revolution’s main goal was to liberate all of Palestine. The idea of a democratic secular state in Palestine for all –Muslims, Christians and Jews – had emerged but was strongly rejected by Israel as it would nullify the idea of a Jewish national homeland. Through the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the Palestinian national existence was restored. As the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, the PLO reinforced the reality and national rights of its people in the international arena, achieving numerous victories in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. During this process, the idea of establishing the Palestinian Authority on any liberated Palestinian land was adopted as a step toward an independent Palestinian State.
– As a result of the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remainder of Palestine (the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) as well as the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt and the Golan Heights of Syria. Israel immediately began to expand and annex East Jerusalem, particularly through settlement building and embedding Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
– In 1974, “The Question of Palestine” was restored on the agenda of the United Nations with the General Assembly reaffirming the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination without external interference, the right to national independence and sovereignty, and the right to return to their homes and property. The main right, the right to national independence and sovereignty, implies the existence of the Palestinian State as a natural and historic right.
– Known as the Declaration of Independence, in 1988, the Palestine National Council declared “the establishment of the State of Palestine on the Palestinian land with Jerusalem (Al-Quds Al-Sharif) as its capital,” in fulfillment of the Palestinian right to self-determination. The Council did not define the borders of the State, relying on the natural and historic right of the Palestinian people and the Partition Plan that affirmed the existence of an Arab nation on the land of Palestine. The Council also adopted a political program and recognized UN Security Council resolution 242, in effect accepting the 1967 borders as the borders of the State of Palestine. The State of Palestine and its Declaration of Independence was recognized by numerous countries. Shortly thereafter, the UN General Assembly acknowledged the Declaration of Independence by the Palestinian National Council.
– The advancement of the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital became the Consensus National Program. However, the national goal was defined as “the establishment of the State” rather than the “national independence of the State”, which exhibited some confusion between the existence of the declared and recognized state on the one hand and ending the occupation of that state and building its institutions on the other.
– The program of the Palestinian State on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital remained the Consensus National Program despite the calls of a minority for the liberation of historic Palestine. With the emergence of Political Islam, that minority gained momentum, at times leading to confrontations between the two trends, while reflecting some confusion between the program and the political process and the idea of a political settlement. Hamas’ acceptance, at a later stage, of the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders, reformed the minority, which should have led to a broad Consensus National Program and the central national goal.
– With progress on the Palestinian position, and Egypt’s decision to make peace with Israel, international support for a lasting solution of the question of Palestine and an end to the conflict strengthened. Some proposals emerged, including “Land for Peace” and later, the two-state solution, widely taken to mean a Palestinian State on the 1967 borders. Other proposals were also suggested, most notably resolving the question of Palestine in stages including self-government – an idea envisaged at Camp David in 1978, and incorporated in the “Framework for Peace in the Middle East” document.
– Israel expressed its commitment to the international positions and proposals but, in actuality, focused on the colonization of the Palestinian land through the expansion and embedding of settlers in the Palestinian territory. This policy clearly demonstrates Israel’s rejection of the Palestinian national existence and achievement of a real, viable political settlement. Its ideological intention to seize the remainder of historic Palestine continues unabated, while exploring other solutions for the Palestinians.
– In 1993, the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Government of Israel signed the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements (DoP) for a transitional period not exceeding five years, during which permanent status negotiations on Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, and borders would commence. The Declaration was preceded by mutual recognition in which the Palestine Liberation Organization recognized the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security, and the Government of Israel recognized the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people.
– Israel did not adhere to the Declaration of Principles. The leaders of the political solution, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and, later, Palestinian President Yasser Arafat were assassinated. Israel accelerated its colonization of the Palestinian territory and escalated its illegal oppressive measures against the Palestinian people and decimation of Palestinian institutions, particularly during the second Intifada.
– Nevertheless, the idea of a two-state solution –the international political solution –remained. In the meantime, Israel has attempted to amass additional gains, including the annexation of settlement blocs in exchange for some Israeli land, denying the rights of refugees, and imposing various forms of security control over the Palestinian territory. As well, Israel’s designs on Jerusalem remain a major obstacle to any political solution.
The Current Situation
– With the Israeli position shifting toward rightwing extremism and even fascism, the idea of a two-state solution became less acceptable. The policy of Israeli settler colonialism began to take new forms, including the enactment of laws in an attempt to legislate the occupied territory and applying Israeli law on settlements.
– The policy of the current U.S. administration, including its refusal to commit to the two-state solution, oppose settlement building and expansion, and recent recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, has dealt a profound blow to the idea of a political solution on the basis of two states. We recognize that U.S. pronouncements about a solution between “Israel and the Palestinians,” infer that Israel is the legitimate legal entity and it should devise a solution with the Palestinian community.
– We also note that during previous periods, the Palestinian position slid toward viewing the political settlement as the main issue, not merely a mechanism. Positions were adopted which appeared to signify that negotiations should lead to a Palestinian State, rather than the independence of the existing state and the parameters of relations between the two states.
– The conflict is existential. Therefore, the only correct approach is to firmly uphold the reality of the Palestinian national existence, i.e. the existence of the State of Palestine that already abides by virtue of the natural and historic right of the Palestinian people and the international legitimacy and recognition of the State by the majority of countries in the world. The State exists whether Israel likes or not, and whether there is a political process or not. Therefore, the central national goal –the crux of the Consensus National Program– is the achievement of national independence and the exercise of sovereignty, with or without a political settlement, on the basis of the 1967 borders, including Jerusalem.
– The 1967 border is the legal and political basis of Palestinian resistance and defeat of settler colonialism, upheld by international consensus on the legal status of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as occupied territories to which the 4th Geneva Convention that prohibits colonization applies, as well as relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions and other instruments of international law. Settler colonialism is the fundamental threat to the Palestinian national existence and the State of Palestine. Resisting this threat should be the central national mission for the Palestinian people and focus of our international efforts in order to establish a system of measures against settlements, settlers, and the entities and companies that work in or with the settlements.
– It behooves the Palestinian minority that seeks to liberate historic Palestine, without even gradual steps, to understand that the State of Palestine within the 1967 border is a mandatory path. Any manipulation of the 1967 border would undermine the Palestinian ability to confront settler colonialism and may even lead to its legitimization.
Political Defeatism That Undermines Our National Rights
In some foreign quarters and some Israelis, basically leftists, talk has begun about the regression, even the demise, of the two-state solution, opining that facts on the ground (basically settlements), as well as the retreat of the Israeli consensus in support of that objective, would prevent such a solution. Such reasoning is indicative of a complete bias toward Israeli policy and its narrative and is counterintuitive: what was built illegally does not lead to facts that cannot be changed. Israeli settlements, as other settlements throughout history, are destined to cease to exist. There is no difference between Israeli settlers in Palestine and the French settlers in Algeria, for example, who had to leave. That they are Israeli does not justify a different fate, as the naysayers would claim. As well, the change in the position of the Israeli general trend is not a justifiable reason, simply because Israelis do not decide in the validity of Palestinian national rights. It is not the Israelis who grant the Palestinians their State. The Palestinians are the indigenous people of the land; they are the rightful owners of the land, and acceptance of this should not be subject to the Israeli mood.
– On the Palestinian scene, some voices have emerged that have also suggested that the two-state solution is unrealistic and should be abandoned. This is indicative of confusion over the two-state solution as an international formula that requires a political and negotiated process with the Palestinian national rights and the existence of the State of Palestine. It is true that the political process has failed, and a lack of trust in a new political process for the same purpose, is justified. There must, however, be a clear distinction between the failure of a political process and a lack of trust in it; perhaps rejecting the process but upholding Palestinian national rights, particularly the existence of the State of Palestine and the imperative to continue the struggle for national independence.
– Some in the Palestinian minority did not stop at this point but also abandoned the idea of the existence of the State of Palestine, calling for the so-called one-state solution with the hope of achieving equal rights. In this context, the one-state solution does not mean the liberation of historic Palestine, the dismantling of the Israeli institutions and creating an alternative democracy. Rather, it signifies frankly becoming part of Israel and then struggling for equal rights – the acme of political defeatism that obliterates Palestinian national rights and existence. This call would, whether intentionally or unintentionally, legitimize settler colonialism in the West Bank and Israeli measures and the U.S. position on Jerusalem, and lead to projects such as the “State of Gaza.” Worse still, it negates the Palestinian narrative as the indigenous people of the land and their national existence. It would give credence to the Israeli narrative, boldly expressed of late, as the “inheritors of Eretz Israel” and that there is no occupied territory and no Palestinian land. But ‘benevolent’ Israelis would, of course, find some solution for the Palestinian communities.
Conclusion
– The Palestinian people are the indigenous people and proprietors of the land of Palestine. They are entitled, as every other people on Earth, to their natural and historic rights: first and foremost their national existence –the existence of their State. The Palestinian people have already declared the establishment of the State of Palestine that has been recognized by the majority of countries in the international community.
– The Palestinian National Program – the Consensus National Program – is the program of a Palestinian State on the basis of the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. The central national goal of the Program is the achievement of independence and the exercise of sovereignty. This goal cannot be granted or prevented by any power, as long as the Palestinian people remain committed to their rights and the achievement of the Palestinian central goal.
– As the State of Palestine is still under occupation, the main goal is national independence. A new resolution or declaration, from any side, is unnecessary. Rather, we must affirm our position to not participate in any political process or negotiation without the recognition of the existence of the State of Palestine from the outset. We must continue to create political facts on the ground and in the international arena, in the context of the State, with universal recognition of the State of Palestine and solidify its status in international organizations.
We must confront the Israeli war against our national existence – the existence of the State of Palestine – by remaining steadfast in our commitment to the Consensus National Program: the Palestinian National Program for the Palestinian State. There is no alternative.
