There are dangerous contradictions in Erekat’s rhetoric

In reading and understanding Saeb Erekat’s rhetoric, it is imperative to include the context of what is left unsaid. From demanding a complete ban on settlement products to insisting on the EU pursuing the implementation of UN resolutions, Erekat exhibits, once again, his penchant for sounding assertive while obliterating all the discrepancies between international legal obligations and acquiescence to Israel.

During Monday’s meeting with the EU Heads of Missions to Palestine, the veteran negotiator and secretary-general of the Palestine Liberation Organisation referred to the current situation as “a crucial moment in order to save the prospects for justice and peace.” He added that Israel is proceeding swiftly with the colonisation of Palestine and implementation of an apartheid reality. Erekat demanded that all EU member states should recognise Palestine; that UN Security Council Resolution 2334 should be implemented; and that there should be “a total ban on Israeli settlement products, including services.”

The latter request builds upon the EU’s earlier, drawn-out decision to label the exact origin of settlement products, hailed as a victory by the Palestinian Authority and eliciting the usual tantrums from Israel. Both reactions were grossly exaggerated by the media, given that the move was directed towards clarity for consumers rather than a punitive measure against Israel’s breaches of international law. A complete ban on settlement products as demanded by Erekat would hypothetically shift the dynamic, yet it is highly improbable that the EU will risk completely damaging its diplomatic relations with Israel for a political authority deriving its restricted power from the coloniser and its international enablers.

“There is no contradiction between taking action against Israeli violations of international law, implementation of UN resolutions and calls for resumption of negotiations,” said Erekat in an attempt to emphasise his point. There is a contradiction in every premise, though, stemming from the constantly-overlooked detail that the entire colonisation of Palestine is illegal.

It is only recently, particularly after Donald Trump was elected as US President, that the internationally-recognised Palestinian leaders have been prompted to start including references to colonisation in their official discourse. Even the hypocrisy of such trend-setting, disguised as purported realisation, is disseminated incompetently, devoid of history and calling into question the repeated motives of calling for negotiations aiming for a two-state “solution”.

With his statement, Erekat has achieved three main things: he has indicated to the international community that the divergences between settler-colonialism and military occupation are not worth distinguishing; that the elimination of the Palestinian diaspora can be added to his diplomatic curriculum; and that, in concordance with the international community, Erekat is imposing the discernment between Israel’s international law violations and Israel itself. This is proof, if more was needed, that earlier colonisation has been normalised and the Nakba reduced to a mere commemoration.

The concealed messages are far more dangerous than any discourse that Erekat is capable of stringing together. In every speech, the abnegation of responsibility is implied meticulously through a simple equation that demands of the EU any effort which, when analysed, is always, in effect and substance, inferior to Israel’s colonial violence and expansion. Given the wide berth allowed for navigating and manipulating even basic human dignity, it should come as little surprise, to Erekat or anyone else, that neither demand will provide a bulwark for Palestine, particularly Palestinian recognition when the territory is running the risk of disappearing altogether as a visible entity.

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