The roots of the current Palestinian impasse Adly Sadek

.

In the meantime, the Palestinian entity is going through the deepest dilemmas it has known since the establishment of the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1964. The dilemma of this period is multidimensional and is fraught with the expulsion of the negatives and frustrations of each stage, and their closure, to the next stage.

It is known that the history of the Palestinian entity has been divided by the criteria of characterizing the tasks and roles of the people and the relationship of the Palestinian system itself to the maximum hopes of the Palestinian people. The National Assembly (the Parliament of Exile) was convened in June 1976 and witnessed the birth of politics, in order to increase the alignment of the armed struggle, with the relative decline of the language calling for full liberation from the river to the sea.

Even then, the idea of ​​armed struggle dominated the Palestinian discourse over the past ten years. In fact, the 1967 paper, which played a central role in the formulation of the Palestinian Left (the Democratic Front), was one of the echoes of the October 1973 war, which established many approaches to settlement, meaning that these approaches began early on the eve of the war. By moving them into the space of regional and international politics, the vocabulary of the settlement will ensure its legitimacy in this space, and it should not quickly leave its first space, represented by the armed struggle!

The ten-point paper was close to the idea of ​​a conflict resolution project, deliberately formulating the spirit of combat, emphasizing the idea of ​​justice and the right of the Palestinians to independence, on any area of ​​land occupied by occupation, without turning back the idea of ​​resorting to weapons. The proponents of that approach have struggled to demonstrate the inadequacy of the slogan "the only way".

The aim of the paper was to establish a national authority over any piece of land liberated from the land of Palestine and to work to create a "secular, bi-national state in Palestine in which all citizens enjoy equal rights regardless of race, gender or religion."

On the other side of the conflict, Israel, despite the existence of the Labor Party in power at the time, was not prepared to show even less leniency, and continued to look at the Palestinian rationales behind the Palestinian political slide floating on the surface and avoid dealing with the new Palestinian orientation, As a trap. In fact, Israel's literature at that time pushed it in a counter-direction, asserting that such leniency was much more dangerous to it than the point of armed action, because it would allow the PLO to enter into negotiations with it on points that it would be difficult to tighten. The so-called "concessions" exploited by Palestinians "hiding their intentions, to improve and strengthen their offensive positions."

Ironically, it was Israel itself who indirectly gave the Palestinians a description of the approach of the settlement, when it invented, not the other, the term "phased program" that the Palestinians received to explain and commercialize the idea of ​​a settlement that recognizes the survival of the Zionist project in Palestine Of the term. At the same time, the Israelis have stuck to the term as one of the most important elements that justify their rejection. As Palestinian politicians continue to emphasize the settlement process, the other party has been receiving the gift in favor of its hardline rhetoric.

In that context, none of the Palestinian politicians was prepared or able to express a firm opinion in his convictions that the settlement is a settlement, not an armed conflict. This is a natural and understandable silence, because no Palestinian leader can actually declare the truth. Contrast the political legacy of the Palestinian national action, and the historical perceptions that emphasize the justice of the Palestinian cause in all its aspects, and in contrast to the injustice of the Palestinian people and their rights in their homes, fields and property.

As if the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) presented its credentials in regional and international organizations in the 10-point paper in June 1974. Palestine, until the convening of the Palestinian National Council in June 1976, was not a member of the League of Arab States. There was a department within the "university" structure called the Department of Palestine. After the 10-point paper, three months ago, on September 9, Palestine was accepted as a full-fledged member, and its ship sailed between a clear and serene atmosphere and passed through the stations of the Islamic Cooperation, the Non-Aligned Movement and the United Nations.

Nine years ago, when Ahmed al-Shuqairi was the founder of the PLO, he was elected chairman of the Executive Committee. The June 1967 defeat took place, and the Arab Summit in Khartoum took place on August 29, 1967. Despite the radicalization of the conference, The efforts of Shafiq al-Hout, an executive member of the organization and the head of its office in Beirut at the time, to secure the presence of the Shukri president, taking advantage of his friendship with the Sudanese prime minister, poet and writer Mohammed Ahmed Mahjoub; The Arab States, an attack to speak, was carried out at the conference hall, a representative of the Tunisian President Habib Bourguiba, Mongi Slim, who objected to his presence, not as head of state and an Arab state foreign minister!

The same thing happened in 1967 when the settlement became a Palestinian Arab project. But the winds did not take place as the Palestine ships wanted. The Palestinians failed to repair their vehicles "in order not to derail the roads of them," in the words of the poet Mahmoud Darwish, until they reached their current predicament, which we must address its aspects and dimensions, In subsequent lines!



.

Sign up for our free – – – and receive our best articles in your inbox.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Powered by Blogger.