The repercussions of forfeiting international recognition

In an example of the hypocrisy inherent in diplomacy and negotiations, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has stated that there will be a temporary halt in seeking further recognition from international organisations in order to perceive the outcome following the suspension of negotiations. The decision would have entailed obtaining “legitimacy” from organisations that thrive upon sustaining the conditions for illegality and violence, albeit resulting in possible further scrutiny of Israel’s settler-colonial occupation.

According to the Times of Israel, Abbas’s focus upon alleged principles now takes precedence over any sliver of independence. Speaking about the unity government, Abbas stressed that “the government would accept all of the Middle East Quartet’s principles: recognition of Israel, recognition of previous agreements and the explicit rejection of violence and terrorism.”

With discourse on behalf of the PA and Hamas shifting increasingly towards concessions, the proposed unity is moving towards an agreement which facilitates capitulation to imperialist demands. Recently Palestinian leaders have attempted to commemorate the Palestinian Nakba while reiterating their oblivion in identifying solely with the hypothetical two-state solution based upon the 1967 borders. While Abbas has long since incorporated imperialist propaganda in his rhetoric, allowing historical distortion from within as opposed to creating spaces for Palestinian memory to thrive, Hamas still fluctuates between assertions of resistance and acknowledgements of concessions.

Khaled Meshaal’s emphasis upon reconciliation and concessions stood in apparent contrast to statements by senior Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahhar who, according to Press TV, made declarations pertaining to the centrality of resistance and the Palestinian right of return. “The right of return is every Palestinian’s sacred and legitimate right, no matter the time and place,” said Zahhar. “What started off as an individual pursuit has now turned into a collective concern, vital to the self-esteem and dignity of an entire nation.” However, this statement made no reference to the discrepancy of emphasising 1967 over 1948 which means that while the historical context is not eliminated, various interpretations may be gleaned, some detrimental to the liberation of all of Palestine.

If considered within the context of reconciliation and concessions, reaffirming the right of Israel to exist invalidates the Palestinian right of return, a stance already incorporated within the UN’s illusory resolutions and recommendations. Seeking legitimacy within a compromised international community, compounded with the inability to articulate Palestinian history from within due to the absorption of colonial and imperial interpretations distorting reality, creates a concentrated acquiescence which annihilates the possibility of a political alternative founded within legitimate resistance.

Within this context, the decision to withdraw from further international recognition exhibits the restrictions that Palestinians face in the absence of a coherently articulated struggle against the recognition of Israel in order to strengthen the case for liberation and return. Instead of withdrawing upon principled reservations due to UN imperialist complicity and striving for a unified resistance that could be disseminated by utilising the international platform, Palestinian leaders seem determined to negotiate fragmented territory and uphold the illusion of a Palestinian state. This will have serious repercussions for the integrity of historic Palestine, not least that it will safeguard the existence of Israel’s violent and continuous settler-colonial project.

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