Palestinian liberation is being thwarted by dependency and deprivation

Last Sunday, The Arab Weekly published an interview with Fatah’s International Relations Commissioner Nabil Shaath, in which a stereotyped expression of freedom was announced, along with calls for a consumer boycott against Israel and unity among Palestinian factions. It is not that the ideas put forth are unimportant, but the entire interview exhibits no sign of a departure from decades of impositions upon the Palestinians.

“If anything,” Shaath declared, “past experiences and alterations in the world and around us in the region tell us that we should start depending on ourselves, not wait for others to give us our rights.” Rights, he added, are not given but taken by force.

Given the entire sanctimonious structure upon which human rights have evolved – namely the bestowing of inadequate compensation for several forms of violence – it is logical that, rhetorically, Shaath would resort to such a statement. Yet, the truth of his words is compromised by other phrases, such as repetitions of what the Middle East Quartet stated a few months ago regarding the peace process being obsolete. If any adherence to acquiring rights by force is to be implemented, it stands to reason that a clear admission describing the purported peace process for what it is – an imposition favouring Israeli colonial expansion – is utilised, rather than remaining ensconced within the narratives imposed upon Palestinians by external actors with vested interests in sustaining colonialism.

Shaath’s suggestions – political unity and a consumer boycott of Israel – are also dependent upon other factors if they are to be implemented. It is clear that complicity with, and dependency upon, Israel has fostered severe ruptures within Palestinian society that are now reflected at every level. His statement is, therefore, deficient, given that there is deprivation as regards both unity and a consumer boycott within Palestine.

The Palestinian Authority’s prime concern has never wavered; any manifestation to the contrary would fail to justify its existence and role in extending colonial violence to Palestinians through security coordination with the colonial-occupier, Israel. The Fatah-controlled PA, let us not forget, failed to even sustain a semblance of unity when Gaza was being bludgeoned during Operation Protective Edge in 2014, preferring instead to ridicule the valiant Palestinian resistance. Opportunities to construct unity between Palestinian factions departing from resistance were also thwarted by insistence upon the two-state compromise, which is a perfect example of how even the concept of taking rights by force has already been jeopardised.

Unity is further restricted by the dynamics of dependency. BDS successes have had an impact on Israel, yet there is an element of detachment from the daily realities faced by Palestinians who are walking a fine line between resistance and survival. One must ask how fears arising from deprivation would be addressed by the PA, given the current scenario in which even basic needs such as water and education are targeted deliberately by Israel in the full knowledge that there is no adequate support system which will contribute towards sustainability.

Given the ramifications, it is even more essential for Palestinian factions to prioritise liberation above any other issue. One swift appraisal of the laceration that is Palestine should at least hammer out a single truth; the difference between rights and liberation as a battle between ambiguous compromise and freedom is something that Shaath, despite several strong statements, has failed to articulate.

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