Internationalising the conflict detracts from the necessary internationalising of the resistance

A recent interview with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu published on Bloomberg regurgitates previous arguments while attempting to provide an innovative context based upon the alleged futility of the recent US-brokered negotiations and an accusation of internationalising conflict.

The usual laments – the lack of a negotiating partner, the pondering of unilateral steps and repetitive insistence upon the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state are discussed within parameters that exhibit irritation at Abbas’s belated decision to seek international recognition at the UN.

“What has Abbas done? Nothing. He’s refused to entertain Kerry’s effort to try and lock horns on core issues. He internationalised the conflict.” Netanyahu attempted to portray an irreversible reality to the detriment of the settler-colonial state, yet the ramifications stemming from Abbas’ passive stance and deferred decisions illustrate a dissonance capitulating to decades of concessions.

Embarking upon the compromised negotiations, Abbas prioritised deceitful bargaining over the lives of Palestinian prisoners, ridiculed the right of return for all Palestinians and acquiesced to possibilities of further imperialist oppression by suggesting NATO involvement to ensure border security of a future hypothetical Palestinian state divested of its history.

In return, Israel continued its laceration of Palestinian territory by building more settlements – an issue which Netanyahu disregards by stating the existence of prior, clarified agreements with the US and the PA. “We built exactly what we said we would build in every one of the tranches. It wasn’t that we surprised anyone with extra construction.” The settlements, which Netanyahu states constitute solely “an increasing population within these urban blocks” that supposedly have no consequences on cartography, are linked to an endorsed expression of Jewish self-determination.

In light of unfettered access to further slivers of Palestinian territory, Netanyahu’s claim that Abbas has “internationalised the conflict” should not be constructed as an endeavour on behalf of the Palestinian leadership to internationalise resistance. Abbas has simply internationalised a detached “occupation” based upon the 1967 borders in complicity with Israel and the US, resulting in colossal implications for the Palestinian struggle and memory and thus increasing impunity for any forthcoming collaborative efforts to consolidate the settler-colonial project.

Internationalising the struggle against Israel’s settler-colonialism should take precedence over any substitute framework. Yet, despite the legitimacy of resistance against colonisation which is endorsed in the selectively quoted international legislation, the PA leader has allowed its deterioration through a restricted definition resulting in impediments to its dissemination.

A recapitulation of Abbas’ complicity is necessary to outline the absence of an internationalised struggle. The negotiations took place upon an understanding that international recognition from the UN would not be sought. Following the inability to negotiate the release of the fourth group of Palestinian prisoners, Abbas attempted a belated retaliatory gesture that was hailed as positive and a step towards garnering international legitimacy. Recently, Abbas announced a deferral in seeking further international recognition.

It is impossible to internationalise resistance by adhering to an imperialist framework, with the additional humiliation of a leader whose allegiance to Israel has been demonstrated continuously. Instead of asserting legitimacy through Palestinian history, Abbas capitulates to the demands of an organisation that facilitated the destruction of Palestinian territory by promoting Israel’s right to exist as an imperative. UN support for settler-colonialism has infiltrated mainstream discourse to the point where unravelling the distortion necessitates an absolute repudiation of the “certainties” which have become convenient fodder not only for the gullible, but also for leaders who intentionally promulgate the absence of Palestine as a desirable solution.

Aspects that have been conveniently internationalised so far include illusory solidarity with Palestinians promoted by the UN, increased rhetoric regarding peace and the 1967 borders, discourse regarding settlement construction as opposed to the historical commitment to consolidate the settler-colonial state and Palestinian leaders’ defection from history and memory. This scenario has been rendered tangible due to the earliest recognition of Israel, the degeneration of resistance, negating the reality of settler-colonialism and perfecting of the Plan Dalet, the assimilation to imperialist discourse resulting in misrepresented Palestinian history, as well as the PA’s security collaboration with Israel. Endorsed by the UN and disseminated by the international community to facilitate the process of oblivion, the frameworks have resulted in the subjugation of Palestinians to a counterfeit legitimacy shrouded in the ramifications of political violence.

In the absence of a unified Palestinian resistance, the prevailing discourse remains tethered to international conspiracy regarding the convenience of articulating a hypothetical two-state solution; a position also endorsed by entities claiming to support Palestinian self-determination. Hence, international support for Palestine based upon alleged solutions advocated by imperialism furthers oblivion and creates a contradiction, namely recognition of Israel is given precedence over the legitimacy of resistance. Effectively, the repercussions of failing to articulate resistance from within to be internationally disseminated can be perceived as the culmination of betrayal, carried out with knowledge of the fact that the elimination of resistance reduces the prominence of the Palestinian right of return – a stance that has been confirmed by Abbas on various occasions.

Internationalising the “conflict”, therefore, incarcerates Palestinians within a compromised dimension. It is an imperialist tactic; one that the UN constantly endorses in order to sustain the conditions of perpetual violence upon which its existence thrives. As illusions prevail over the legitimacy of resistance, the indigenous population’s awareness of loss heightens in equivalence to the realisation that no political alternative is currently able to initiate a defined challenge against colonisation. The formation of the unity government so far seems wrought in compromise which subjugates itself to a permanent fragmentation of historic Palestine.

The alternative for Palestinians lies in a leadership that retains liberation as the primary and ultimate consideration; divested of imperialist international structures that seek to determine eligibility criteria based upon allegiances in order to promote liberation. Resistance against colonial and imperial domination requires a realisation of how the resulting oppression renders subjugated people unable to express their legitimacy within the carefully constructed parameters that are rarely challenged. This realisation is obscured by Palestinian leaders who have keenly incorporated Western perceptions to articulate the people’s history.

There are several perils that threaten the fomenting of widespread oblivion; commencing with the UN and its multitude of invalidated resolutions. Even more sinister is the officially endorsed two-state hypothesis as a permanent solution despite the instigated rupture brought about by neglecting the Nakba.

Ultimately, the focus upon the two-state solution is a testimony of the probability that, due to decades of compromise, Palestinian leaders may soon have nothing to negotiate about. If reconciliation and unity are to be effective, Palestinian leadership should provide the foundations to internationalise Palestinian resistance as a political assertion that takes precedence over dictates that seek the consolidation of Israel’s settler-colonial state.

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