Opposing Israel's permanence

Mangled beyond recognition, the concept and implementation of reconciliation has been usurped by diplomacy to encompass a wider spectrum than its initial intention. Hailed as the means through which factional differences in Palestinian leadership might be resolved, reconciliation has instead become a multi-faceted process that lends itself, with the wilful consent of Palestinian leaders, diplomats and many others clamouring for illusory peace, to the auspices of the settler-colonial state and its international accomplices.

Deemed an ultimate option, the association of reconciliation solely with the creation of the unity government has allowed deeper ramifications to remain unchallenged, in particular the consolidation of Zionist settler-colonial presence in Palestine. Statements about the unity government veer towards the utopia associated with the perception of reconciliation, a process which incorporates imperialist expectations of governance, control and subjugation of the people as the means of thwarting Palestinian resistance. Hence, the prevailing outcome remains international complicity in the ongoing usurpation of Palestinian land and memory.

Given the current political framework in relation to decades of concessions granted by Palestinian leaders, the concept of reconciliation has imparted an increased subjugation that should be perceived as part of a wider strategy. This enables Israel to dictate its dominion and justify the ensuing oppression inflicted upon Palestinians as an alleged reaction to purported international support.

As discourse revolves around terms such as mutual recognition, the two-state solution and international approval of the Palestinian unity government (with the latter opposed constantly by Netanyahu in his attempts to divert discourse towards negotiation), reconciliation is appropriated in a manner that extends beyond the alleged significance for Palestinians. In the absence of unified struggle, reconciliation furthered the Palestinian leadership’s submission in relation to concessions, hence the international community’s simultaneous commendations and admonishments with regard to the incongruence of Palestinian statehood and insistence upon recognising Israel’s existence.

The endorsement of reconciliation as part of the political struggle in which Israel’s security and right to exist are the priority has widened the interpretation of reconciliation to place the settler-colonial state, the colonised land and the indigenous people on a par. This is a dangerous affirmation that reverses the frameworks of contiguity and permanence to Israel’s benefit, namely granting recognition to a fabricated state and obliterating indigenous history and memory in the process, despite the fact that permanence should be attributed to the whole of Palestine.

A brief overview of current reconciliatory efforts portrays the Palestinian leadership’s acceptance of the 1967 borders which diminishes the significance of the 1948 Nakba, the exclusion of the Palestinian right of return for all refugees and the relinquishing of resistance. Hence, reconciliation is based upon recognising Israel’s existence and permanence, which completely destroys any scope for Palestinian internal reconciliation between the leadership and the people. The inherent acceptance of Israel’s settler-colonial project annihilates any remaining integrity as Palestinian leaders fail to provide resolute opposition to the notion of “Greater Israel”, which Palestinian academic Nur Masalha (2010) describes as “both a territorial concept and an ideology aimed at achieving maximum territorial expansion and imperial domination in the region”.

In a recent article published in Fathom Journal, Palestinian Ambassador to the UK Manuel Hassassian outlined the necessity of recognising Israel as opposed to explicitly demanding the termination and dismantling of the settler-colonial state. Littered with references to “painful concessions”, “mutual recognition” and “compromise”, Hassassian, together with co-author Raphael Cohen-Almagor, wrote, “Peace is a precious commodity and therefore requires a high price for its achievement, reaching a solution that is agreeable to both.” The flawed argument is a reflection of the wider interpretation of reconciliation safeguarding Israel’s expansionist agenda. Far from a precious commodity, peace has become the euphemism for territorial appropriation concealing itself within the 1967 border discourse. In this case, reconciliation specifically targets the imposition of Palestinians having to accept the continuation of settler-colonialism as a condition for peace which translates to mutual recognition, according to the authors.

In this context, there can be no coherence between the current manifestations of reconciliation and the significance of peace within a framework of authentic Palestinian liberation. Israel’s various levels of settler-colonial participation ought to be dissected and challenged in a manner that eliminates the prevailing expectation of permanence. Israel’s precedence over Palestine mirrors the inhumane complicity of granting settlers legitimacy at the expense of refuting the Palestinian right of return.

Since reconciliation fails to challenge settler-colonialism, Israel’s settler population is absolved of complicity in colonial violence. Normalising Israel’s population into the role of passive or innocent bystanders has allowed visible settler-violence to emerge as a unique threat, as opposed to a variant of violence as a collective. While murder, vandalism and price tag attacks fuel the uproar against aggression, the implications of a so-called “peaceful” population settling in Palestine with full knowledge of, and complicity in, the government’s brutal expulsion of Palestinians is easily overlooked.

If Israel’s permanence is to be challenged, its settler population should be included in the equation. Reconciliation based upon the premise of the 1967 borders includes the legitimising of settlers and repudiation of the right of return for all Palestinians. What Israel’s allies describe as “mutual recognition” translates to the decisive submission gesture required of Palestinians; that of forfeiting their existence to accommodate an expanding colonial state and its settler population. In return, Israel and the allied international community will continue to sculpt “dispute” in a manner that excludes all forms of colonial violence in order to depict, erroneously, the right of return as an insolvable problem.

Within this context, reconciliation becomes a distorted endeavour that needs elimination due to its foundations based upon perfecting compromise with Israel. The error of regarding settlers and Palestinians as equal is reflected in another hypocritical assumption; the implementation of peace as an equal objective for the settler-colonial state and Palestine. For the coloniser that has already pledged allegiance to violence, peace is not an option. Neither can it be considered an abstract to be divided equally. If settlers are the foundations upon which the settler-colonial state continues to thrive, reconciliation should allow a unified challenge against the seemingly passive, permanent presence that provides a major impediment for the Palestinian right of return.

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