Palestinian demands should triumph over Israeli and international scheming

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s state visit to the Netherlands was an exercise in complete psychological and political manipulation. Not only did Netanyahu fail to distinguish between the aims of the Palestinian people and those of the Palestinian Authority; Israeli hegemony was also discussed in relation to Europe and European countries. Such belligerence only serves to indicate how European countries have become subservient to Israel while allocation attention to Palestinians as a consequence of the more apparent collaboration with Tel Aviv.

Departing from the usual whining about Palestinians wanting “Acre, Jaffa and Tel Aviv”, Netanyahu insisted that: “The Palestinians and [PA President Mahmoud] Abbas won’t agree to the existence of Israel.” As quoted in the Times of Israel, Netanyahu also stated: “Their problem is not the West Bank, it’s our very existence.”

A shard of truth can be gleaned from Netanyahu’s last utterance with regard to Israel’s existence within the context of the two-state paradigm imposed upon Palestinians. However, to frame a refusal to recognise Israel as a constant preoccupation is not only hypocritical but also intentionally misleading.

The PA’s acceptance of the two-state compromise is indicative of acquiescence to Israel’s existence rather than purported opposition. Abbas’s antics, and those of other PA officials, contain enough proof of where his loyalties lie. For Palestinians, any semblance of acquiescence to Israel’s existence is likely a product of economic benefit in the case of the Palestinian elite, or a permeating culture of fear for Palestinians whose lives have become a metaphor of tragedy for survival.

Having said that, a true anti-colonial struggle, which so far has not been forthcoming due to the exaggerated importance given to corrupt diplomacy, should obviously encompass a rejection of Israel, otherwise there is no point in arguing against the two-state compromise and its ramifications.

However, the international community – Europe included – has created many parallel versions of what the Palestinian struggle should consist of. BDS, which has gained enough ground to irk Israel, is perhaps the most visible example of what international solidarity for Palestine can achieve. Yet it is not without pitfalls, including a lack of clear anti-colonial stance. For the international community, therefore, BDS can manoeuvre itself between both realms, retaining its position at the helm of pressuring companies to cease their dealings with Israel, yet remaining a few steps away from outright rejection of Israel precisely due to its distinguishing between 1948 and 1967.

These two important dates have strengthened Israel, rather than Palestinian memory, precisely due to the fact that the international community has also benefited from the associated ambiguity, to the point that Europe is willing to have its foreign policy as regards Israel influenced both by the manifested colonial presence in Palestine, as well as its narratives. Hence, Netanyahu will face little political opposition when claiming that “Israel doesn’t only protect itself, but also protects Europe.” Even though Europe is both necessary and. to a certain extent, expendable to Israel, it has been given enough impunity by the international community to project its security narrative and, in turn, remain assured of it being absorbed. It is therefore equally clear that reciprocity, in this case making Palestinians an expendable entity, is not at all disagreeable to Israel. Hence the importance of making Netanyahu’s incessant whine, that Israel’s existence is an impediment, a reality that will ultimately form a coherent and consistent anti-colonial Palestinian and internationalist struggle.

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