Emphasis on Israeli primacy undermines the struggle against colonialism

In an article published by Ma’an News Agency, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat has outlined his insistence upon the international community’s role in bringing about peace, departing from an endorsement of the two-state solution. The international community, according to Erekat, should decide whether peace should be achieved through an implementation of the two-state solution or “a long struggle for civil rights in order to defeat Israeli apartheid throughout historic Palestine.”

Erekat provides a simplified overview of Palestinian efforts to seek international legitimacy juxtaposed by Israeli atrocities and retaliation upon the population, yet absolves the international community of complicity, resorting to terminology such as “the lack of decisive international action”. The attempt to provide a pragmatic view while marginalising the inconsistencies within the expressed narrative resulted in an analysis which enforces external interference to the detriment of Palestinians.

Fluctuating between perceptions about the death of the two-state solution and the possibility of its implementation subject to approval from the same imperialist powers that support Israel’s objective of complete colonisation, the article eliminates Palestinian aspirations within one brief statement that sets the scene for the rest of the rhetoric. “Palestine recognised Israeli sovereignty over 78 per cent of our homeland back in 1988,” said Erekat. “This painful and historic compromise was not a tactical move, but a strategic choice.”

What Erekat describes as a strategic choice translates into the gradual deterioration of Palestinian resistance against settler-colonisation. While purporting itself to be a defence of Palestinian rights, the article emphasises constantly the Palestinian leadership’s compliance with Israeli and international demands. In perfect synchronisation with the collective oppression, seeking legitimacy within the compromised international arena while emphasising non-violence increases the alienation of the right to resort to various means, including armed resistance, to ensure Palestinian liberation.

Too much emphasis is placed upon acceding to international treaties and the expected international recognition for such initiatives. The international community has flaunted its preference for negotiations as another means for colonising Palestine. Considering international complicity, the only bestowed recognition Erekat can expect is that of a completely subjugated population lacking the means to resist imperialist-supported colonisation. Such deterioration will, of course, occur with complete acquiescence on behalf of Palestinian leaders, whose historical betrayal of resistance has been upheld by the international community as the epitome of desired cooperation.

Instead of promoting the mainstream narrative, to the point of affirming that his belief in peace increased after meeting several Israelis who allegedly “resent” the current scenario, Erekat should veer away from diplomacy and embark upon combating the acceptance of Israel’s existence. If an end to colonisation is truly desired, the two-state solution should be eliminated, in accordance with Palestinian rights. Israel’s impunity cannot solely be constructed as a product of complacency. The excessive focus upon recognising Israel, articulated by Palestinian leaders, has eclipsed the fundamental issue of Palestinian liberation. Deconstructing the existence of Israel through the endorsement of Palestinian resistance, as well as eliminating the quest for approval from international organisations, would at least shift the focus back to Palestinians, who remain shadowed by the settler-colonial state and marginalised even within narratives in which, by right, they should be the protagonists.