clear

Creating new perspectives since 2009

PLO references to Latin America highlight what the Palestinian leadership can’t emulate

May 31, 2018 at 4:01 pm

Palestinians demonstrate in front of the offices of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in Ramallah [Issam Rimawi/Apaimages]

Yet more Palestinians have been killed in the wake of US President Donald Trump’s announcement of his “deal of the century”. Gaza has again been bombed by Israel over the past couple of days, and now suffers further incarceration with the construction of more land and sea barriers. To this misery must be added the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority’s exploitation of the humanitarian crisis to wrest control of the enclave from Hamas by nefarious means rather than the ballot box.

Furthermore, during a meeting with the Ecuadorian Ambassador to Palestine, Javier Santos Blazzarti, a Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) Executive Committee member communicated its refusal to agree to Trump’s proposals. “With all its forces and political currents and institutions, the PLO reject this deal,” insisted Tayseer Khaled.

Wafa news agency’s detailed report on the meeting shows the PLO operating within different strands of propaganda. It seeks to align itself with Latin America countries that are supportive of Palestine. This is bolstered by the denouncing of US and Israeli aggression against Palestinians. According to Khaled, “The US administration and the occupying power exploit the humanitarian disaster while both have contributed to its aggravation.” Moreover, there is an emphasis on the belated action taken by the Palestinian National Council (PNC) following Trump’s unilateral declaration of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the subsequent transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv.

Khaled’s narrative obliterates the PLO’s role in contributing to the current oppression of the people of Palestine. It has become easier with the passing of time and from a complicit political perspective, to highlight the Oslo Accords as a form of oppression only because the current framework demands it and is supportive of generating a unified front. However, he refrains from mentioning how the PA repeatedly relied on vague threats instead of protecting Palestinians, to the extent that unimplemented decisions like the suspension of security coordination, are overshadowed by other forms of oppression from within.

Decoding the US Embassy move to Jerusalem: Why Trump did it

The reference to Latin America and its heroic anti-colonialism has its limits in terms of comparison with the Palestinian struggle. From the people’s perspective, there are many similarities; both, for example, have struggled against forms of colonial and neoliberal violence. The persecution of indigenous population is another common factor. Politically, however, Palestinians have lacked a representative who is willing to stand entirely by the people. Their anti-colonial struggle has been betrayed by a leadership which hesitates even to use the word “colonialism”, let alone provide the political foundations for resistance against it. Fidel Castro’s statement to the UN — “Colonies do not speak. Colonies are not known until they have the opportunity to express themselves” — falls on deaf ears as far as the PLO is concerned. Chile’s Salvador Allende’s last stance is also incompatible with the PA’s bargaining over Palestinian lives.

The easiest rhetoric is that of distant comparison, something which the leadership in the occupied West Bank excels in. However, resorting to this tactic also exposes the fact that the PLO has no capacity to emulate a revolutionary stance. Rather than protect Palestinians, the PA has taken measures to extend the colonial violence through its institutions. It has allowed the Palestinian right to return to be ridiculed and reduced to a mere slogan. Worst of all, it has always acted belatedly and against Palestinian demands, to the point that there is negligible genuine representation of the people. It’s all a far cry from the revolutionary leaders of Latin America, whose political role remained committed to the people, alongside whom they stood.

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