The international choice of divisive narratives

The trend of occasional commentary aimed at imparting the obvious seems to be a precondition for UN-affiliated positions. It is, however, equally evident that apart from a perfunctory narration, there is no cohesion between international organisations and Palestinians.

A recent example is Robert Piper’s article titled: “The humanitarian impact of a divided government” published on the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied Palestinian Territories (OCHA oPt) website. The list of humanitarian grievances is indeed dire, marking a severe implosion particularly in Gaza. However, it is a determined preference that such oppression is discussed as a recent phenomenon only marginally tied to “49 years of occupation” and totally dissociated from Israel’s colonial ambitions.

Piper’s article cites rifts between Fatah and Hamas as exacerbating the humanitarian situation in Gaza, stating: “Despite the swearing-in of a Government of National Consensus in April 2014, the gap between Ramallah and Gaza city seems to be widening.” Such an observation is hardly a novelty, yet it is precisely the regurgitation of the obvious that keeps Palestine in marginalised international scrutiny. The gap between Ramallah and Gaza exists because the international community has contributed towards the discrepancies first and foremost; the ramifications of the failed unity government project are consequences of intentionally mismanaged political intent.

It is only towards the end of the article that Piper declares: “The overarching situation is a political one of course, well beyond the realm of the humanitarian.” The statement is contentious due to decades of abuse regarding the truth of this reality, as well as the inscribed fact that, despite rhetoric, the UN’s commitment towards Palestinians does not even lie within the parameters of “standing-by to help”, as articulated by Piper. Palestinians have been reduced to the ignominy of having no alternative other than a political subjugation by the puppets of Ramallah to international impositions. Divisions and divergences between Palestinians exist and have been exploited by Palestinian leaders allied with the international community against the Palestinian cause to further the fragmentation of the Palestinian population and territory.

The Palestinian unity government could have imparted a difference had its foundations been based upon the unity of resistance, rather than performing the role of an extension of the Palestinian Authority. Nevertheless, this is another relic of Israeli colonialism – a manifestation of the politics that have constrained Palestinians into a humiliating humanitarian trend while the international community boosts its visibility through knowledge and passive approval of the abuse inflicted upon the indigenous population by Israel and its obedient collaborators. Hence the urge to identify Palestinians as “ordinary” or “innocent”; a tactic that can also be read as a diatribe against Palestinian unity given its dismissal of resistance as a Palestinian legitimate right.

In the UN’s analysis of a humanitarian impact wrought by political divisions, there is always an element of condescension and enforcement of further divisive incitement. It is all too easy to subscribe to the image of Palestinians as a deprived, incarcerated population – indeed to the point of helplessness. Combating the prevalence of such dissemination is important, given that the prime reason of such indignity is a direct result of international support for colonialism and the persistent refusal to uphold the legitimacy of anti-colonial struggle. Recognition of this fundamental right under international law by the international community would go a long way in bridging the distance between the humanitarian and political realms.

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