The rights dreams and possibilities in Palestine

In the wake of the restoration of the concept of a Palestinian reconciliation including the combination of Hamas and Fatah fighters and the start of the formation of true unity over mutual goals, a frightening truth emerged in the Arab world and the Arab public opinion. This truth is the fact that due to the accumulation of misfortunes in the Arab Spring, the worsening situation in Syria, the sectarian strife in Libya and the unclear future of Egypt, the status of the core Arab issue, i.e. Palestine, has begun to decline and is no longer at the top of the list of priorities amongst Arabs themselves, let alone other countries and the Arabs’ enemies.

The Arab League is absent from the scene and the unjust Jewish state, led by Netanyahu and the Zionist extremists, has allowed the decline of the Arab League’s position in light of the Arabs’ fragmentation.

Moreover, several observers wrote articles expressing their views and declaring their positions with regards to the three following axes involved with the Palestinian issue, namely the rights, dreams and possibilities, regardless of the different visions and analyses. Such observers include Israeli individuals such as the writer of the late President Yasser Arafat’s biography Amnon Kapeliouk and his partner in the Geneva Conference Yossi Beilin both of whom are amongst the most educated Jews with a deep understanding of the Palestinian cause and the most defensive of the Palestinians’ rights in light of the Israeli right-wing arrogance exercised by Netanyahu, Olmert and Sharon.

To be honest, I believe that the three aforementioned symbols, or axes, rights, dreams and possibilities, need to be analysed and debated in order to then determine the priorities based on which ones will allow us to pass through the bottleneck situation we have been in since the Nakba in 1947, the year the state of Israel was established and the subsequent disasters that followed.

The rights of the Palestinians are now seen through the perspective of the international system recognised by the international laws stemming from the UN and Security Council resolutions which, of course, recognise the rights of the Palestinian people. It took a long time for the these laws to meld with reality and this was followed by two post-Nakba generations who uncovered the playing field in the Middle East and imposed a new reality different to the state of emergency imposed by the whole world on Palestine, i.e. Israel. I say the whole world and not only the United States because the Jewish state was internationally recognised in 1947 by Moscow, Ankara, Paris and New Delhi before Washington and because most of the major vital countries in the Middle East were hiding the opposite of what they exposed and because some Aran governments had secret relations with Israeli leaders for over 50 years.

The difficult and complex reality we see today is not consistent with the truth, but it provides room for political, diplomatic and cultural struggle against the forces allied through hostility and evil, by means of which the Arab internal divisions find the best support to re-draw the map of the Middle East in a manner that serves Israel, not only as a traditional ally, but as an elected leader of the Middle East, leading the Middle East to democracy, reform and free trade within the confines of the globalisation required and imposed on all people.

In truth I wanted to address the difference between rights and reality in terms of the Palestinian tragedy. The legitimate struggle for the Palestinians’ rights must be read while taking into account the reality and the regional and international sudden shifts, which contribute to creating a different reality that does not necessarily respond to the interests of those who have the rights, no matter how committed they are to their rights and how much they fight to restore and impose them.

Today, in 2014, the priority of the Arabs and those sharing their fate is finding acceptable solutions for the escalating Arab crises, from Libya to Syria, Yemen and the Arab Maghreb. According to history, the Tunisian leader Habib Bourguiba was the first to understand and undo the international political game and strategy before anyone else with regards to the Palestinian issue, which was apparent when he made his famous speech at Aqbat Jaber camp in Jericho on March 11, 1965.

During his speech, he presented a solution that would balance between rights and reality, i.e. between preserving the country with armed struggle and between diplomacy by upholding the internationally legitimate Partition Plan Resolution issued on November 29, 1947, which Bourguiba said would make Israel illegitimate. What happened unfortunately is that Bourguiba was cursed and the Arabs accused him of the typical charges, which the broadcaster Ahmed Saeed repeated day and night on the Sawt Al-Arab (Voice of the Arabs) radio station, heard from the Atlantic to the Gulf.

Today, 50 years after the speech in Jericho, we find that some Arabs are unaware of the facts and current shifts in the world and still do not distinguish between truth and fact and continue to demand impossible matters instead of demanding possible matters and postponing the impossible for tomorrow or for the future, without compromising their rights. Politics is ultimately the art of the possible, the negotiation of obstacles and legitimate manoeuvres in order to thwart the schemes of the enemy.

Perhaps the temporary tension that is hindering the Palestinian people is first and foremost caused by the confusion between rights and reality and the inability to differentiate between the main strategic end and the appropriate means to reach this end, known as tactfulness, i.e. smart political planning stage by stage and step by step. Those fighting in Islamic Jihad and Hamas have the same strategic goal sought by Mahmoud Abbas, but the only difference and disagreement is related to tactics, i.e. progressing stage by stage, rationality and the utilisation of mind and insight.

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