A matter more dangerous than liquidation

Most of us use the term “liquidation solutions” with reference to the successive attempted settlement agreements of the Palestine issue throughout its modern history. They are usually signed by the occupation and a Palestinian party that is willing to make concessions under the patronage of international parties; who can only be classified as allies of the occupation, and not mediators between the two sides.

The problem is not with this description or the term itself, but with the fact that we sometimes overlook or forget the main issue that poses the real threat to Palestine; that it is under occupation. The occupation was and continues to be the main liquidation plan that has targeted the Palestinian land, people, and civilisation. Any other agreement, settlement, or stitch-up that came later are nothing but direct consequences of the occupation.

We should not believe that Kerry’s plan, with its many details, is more dangerous than the occupation of Jerusalem, Haifa, Acre, and Jaffa or more dangerous than the Judaisation of the Green-Line areas over the past decades, after displacing its people and changing its features and landmarks. Moreover, we should not believe that making the West Bank an array of fragmented cantons subjected to the fragile administration of the Palestinian Authority will be any better than the current situation that has gone on for years.

I am not saying this to downplay the dangers of Kerry’s plan, nor to question the importance of opposing it. Instead, my intent is to point out the fact that the national vision should be comprehensive, not partial. By focusing only on the West Bank and Gaza and assuming that these are the only areas that belong to us and that we, as Palestinians belong to, is a very dangerous approach. This is not only because it disregards the origin of the Palestinian cause and erases the memories of all the previous crimes committed by the occupation, but also because the West Bank, its land, people, resources and all its strategic positions are under direct occupation. There is practically no place the occupation is unable to access. Therefore, when we describe Kerry’s plan as a liquidating scheme, it is not because it will produce something more dangerous than the current reality, but because it aims to end the negotiations and political arguments regarding the Palestinian cause in accordance with the illusions of the so-called final solution. Moreover, the Palestinian cause has proven time and again that it is not possible to realise a final status agreement as long as Palestine is under occupation.

The real risk we should be focusing on when addressing and debating Kerry’s plan, as well as other settlement solutions, is its direct impact on the resistance; which is the only factor capable of confronting the problem of the occupation. The real danger posed by the previous agreements was their success, at certain stages, to (partially or fully) eliminate or criminalise the resistance. Meaning that the liquidation based on such agreements or plans are seeking to eliminate the resistance, not the cause, because there is nothing more dangerous or worse for Palestine than its occupation. It is wrong, therefore, to believe that the measures taken by the occupation are worse than the occupation itself. The occupation can only be faced with resistance and by channelling the weight of the national project to serve this purpose and strengthen it.

Therefore, the heroism of the Palestinians should not be measured by their rejection of some proposals, but by their position towards the path of resistance, which is the most important measurement and rule that must be referred to at all times. Of course that is if we truly understand the origin of our problem and dilemma. This perception will automatically be the basis upon which to create an understanding of the importance of resistance in the national project. Moreover, it will be the basis of the need to realise that we must not be deluded by the partial positions adopted by any leader or party that embellishes their speeches with talk of refusing concessions and relinquishing the rights of the Palestinians, and considers themselves a part of the liberation project, while they practically combat the resistance’s thought and behaviour and act as the occupation’s pawn and a main factor for the occupation’s stability.

Any approach that enables the resistance and respects its choices should be supported and respected. Those that criminalise the resistance and fight it do not deserve a reward, even if some “intellectuals” believe that flexibility requires disregarding the origin of the problem and becoming preoccupied with the subsidiary or partial positions. They are obviously deluded by its direct implications and overlook its other face.

The author is a Palestinian writer. This is a translation of the Arabic text published by Knspal on 4 February, 2014

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.