The PA and France are undermining what little Palestinian autonomy there is

As evidenced by recent news reports, France plays its duplicitous role with ease, pressing forward with the proposed international peace conference and garnering further support from the Palestinian Authority. If not for the fact that the rhetoric of PLO Secretary General Saeb Erekat conceals other issues, we could assume that his display of eagerness is simply a continuation of the previous capitulation to France’s alleged partiality towards helping Palestinians construct an independent state.

Following a meeting on Tuesday, in which French Envoy for the Middle East Pierre Vimont met Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Riad Al-Maliki and Erekat, France was once again glorified as the country with realistic proposals which should be supported. “The French ideas are timely, the French ideas are realistic and the French ideas are the only thing in town,” insisted Erekat, “and those who care about peace between Palestinians and Israelis must fully support the French ideas.”

Every premise behind Erekat’s statement is erroneous. There is nothing timely about the initiative; it is unrealistic to believe that the two-state paradigm is a solution to Israel’s colonisation of Palestine; the French proposal is not the “only thing in town” – Erekat is perhaps blind to the reality of resistance; and peace should not be discussed as a measure of balance.

The PA’s glorification of France has been increasing ever since the formation of the Palestinian unity government in 2014 managed to distort the foundations that should have sustained it. Acquiescence conquered the concept that should have been implemented – which is unity derived from Palestinian resistance – thus rendering the political body an extension of the PA’s decadence. France was one of the first countries to extend a diplomatic invitation, while also supporting Israel’s belligerent demands. Later, Paris lauded the PA’s efforts at the UN Security Council and drafted resolutions which, while complying with international demands, still did not garner the required support. It is evident that the cycle of diplomacy is a form of political oppression of which the PA approves; indeed, it has enlisted France’s help in order to sustain this dynamic. The international conference is also devoid of any innovative idea to tackle Israel’s colonial expansion; nevertheless, Erekat has enforced ludicrous expectations by supporting the schemes which a pro-Israel, Zionist-aligned country is concocting for Palestine.

Israel’s foreign ministry has expressed the usual preconditions that stipulate “no prior conditions between the parties and the PA’s responsibility to combat terror and incitement.” So far there is perfect concordance between Israel and France in terms of regurgitating previous stipulations regarding any form of diplomatic engagement.

Erekat, however, exceeds even the combination of these two allies. According to Ma’an, he emphasised that, “Palestinians are ready to work and cooperate with the international community to end the occupation of Palestinian lands.” Such statements seem to be a PA prerequisite in public speeches, subjugating the entire Palestinian population to international demands through treacherous rhetoric. In fact, it is the international community that should be ready to cooperate and work with Palestinians in their efforts to end Israel’s impunity over its ongoing human rights violations; there is more than enough international legislation covering the entire spectrum of those violations which Palestinians have endured as a result of Israeli colonialism. Such discourse, however, will possibly remain a smouldering implosion until Palestinians have leaders who adhere to resistance to the occupation as a right, rather than a compromised alternative.

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