(Initial talks on the “solutions” proposals to restore the original Palestinian rights)
I start with two observations:
The first observation: What I am presenting here is a personal attitude resulting from long years of reflection, reflection and research, which I hope will in turn generate trading that is itself based on reflection and reflection on all those concerned with our future.
The second observation: I start these trades not by being pre-committed to one of the “slogans” of the proposed solutions (eg bi-national states, secular democratic state, etc.), but because I am convinced that any solutions we propose must stem from clear “strategic objectives” of our struggle, And that these “solutions” are homogeneous. At the same time, I am committed to being part of any group struggling to achieve a democratic, just, free, rejecting exploitation, self-reliant, self-reliant, and independent from external domination in historic Palestine. In other words, I am committed to the struggle that seeks to undermine apartheid, a principle and practice, of all kinds and levels, political, spatial, economic and psychological, on the historic land of Palestine.
The strategic objectives of our national collective struggle are to realize the historic Palestinian rights, which, as I use here, are the right of all Palestinians to a free and independent life in the historical land of Palestine, as an extension and as an organic part of the Arab world without the domination of any political, economic or military power.
This is based on the following preconditions:
• All the activities and consequences of the criminal and illegal colonization of Palestine by the Western Zionist alliance, when Palestine was targeted in the early 20th century, which included the theft of land and water for exclusive Jewish-Zionist settlements, political and legal structures, the displacement of indigenous people, Exclusive of natural resources, etc., are null and void and must be dismantled.
• The unconditional return of all Palestinians, individuals and groups, who were abandoned and forcibly expelled by the colonial Zionist project in cooperation with Western colonial centers, forced them to empty their homes, property and lands; and to exercise their natural, inalienable,
• Preserve these lands, property and natural resources as an essential part of the resources of the land of Palestine, and the productive exploitation of these lands and natural resources for the self-development of the community;
• The absolute freedom of all people in historic Palestine to choose their system of government without coercion or discrimination;
• Maintaining the fundamental principle of separating religious beliefs from the political system and not using religion as a basis for governance;
• Legal guarantee for the protection of the equal rights of individuals and groups of all minorities that are the fabric of the new Palestinian society;
• Insisting on the basic principle that equality and non-exploitation is the organizing principle of the majority and minority relations in the new Palestinian society.
The essence of this debate is the nature of the future society I aspire to, which I hope will be embodied in the future in the land of Palestine. My purpose is not necessarily to focus on the nature of the “nation-state” or the “nation-state” for which we must strive; my conviction is that the “nation state” has become outside its historical context and is going to decay as an organized structure of human groups. In this sense, our effort to create our “national” state, perhaps two or three generations later, is futile and a waste of our societal potential. So I focus on the nature of the community I aspire to achieve.
This debate, then, is a concept-centric debate, and is not intended to be inspired by it as a “political action plan” that may be implemented within a decade. My conviction is that no political “action plan” will be embodied, no matter what, if we do not develop a deep understanding and understanding of the concepts of such a plan. To be clear from the outset, this debate should not replace the daily struggle of the masses against the ongoing Zionist occupation of our land, against the agents, agents and brokers of this local occupation, and against its illegitimate symbols such as the “apartheid wall” and the Zionist colonies – Jewish, etc. But it is complementary to the strategic dimension.
In order to develop this debate with its required universality, without ambiguity or ambiguity, there are three main concepts that must be dismantled, restructured and reconstituted:
1. the land of historical Palestine (historical concept of spatial);
2. the nature of the population in the land of historical Palestine;
3. the nature of the entity, ie the political framework of social-economic-organized population presence in the land of historical Palestine.
1. Since the fragmentation and fragmentation of the Arab region into small, heterogeneous and non-viable states of the Sykes-Picot arrangement in 1916; since the historic land of Palestine was appropriated for expropriation and destruction by the Zionist-Western colonial project, Proposed by the Bill Committee in 1937, through the UN resolution of 1947, and ending with the Oslo Accords (and its aftermath) on the partition of historic Palestine. All these “solutions” are unfair and do not achieve the basic human, social, cultural and economic rights of the Palestinian people. The aim of these proposals has always been to find acceptable arrangements for Western capital centers and dominant powers to meet their goals of creating a “bridgehead” or foothold in Palestine by supporting the establishment of the Zionist-Ashkenazi entity, which seeks to destroy communal life in Palestine and impoverish the majority of its population.
2. The term “historical land of Palestine” is used here to refer to those areas known as “South Syria”, which began to be known as Palestine after the First World War and which, with prior determination, took place under the British occupation and became known as “the land of the occupied enemy.” Regardless of the changes in the administrative structure from one period to another, and from one occupier to another, this area included the whole area west of the Jordan River along a line from the Lebanese border in the north to the Negev in the south, extending westward to the Mediterranean coastline along the line Including the entire Negev area up to Rafah in the south, and up to the Lebanese border to the north, including the entire Galilee region. Thus, the term historic Palestine, as used here, encompasses all the region that Britain, under pressure from the world Zionist movement, insisted on becoming “subordinated” to it and under its control. This is the area known today in the West Bank, Israel and the Gaza Strip.
3. This region was an integral part of the Arab world, as a homeland for the entire Arab people, including the Palestinian Arab people. At the moment, Arab “national” states and states in the region are only artificial “states” created by the dominant Western powers at the time, reflecting, then, the current balance of power. Therefore, the future of the rigidity of these “international configurations” is fragile and uncertain.
In the historic land of Palestine, the population of the future Palestinian society will consist of the following categories:
all the Arab and Jewish Palestinians who lived in the historic land of Palestine before 1948 and continued to coexist to this day;
all Arab Palestinians who were expelled or forcibly displaced as a result of ethnic cleansing and the destruction of Palestinian society And
all the other population groups, regardless of their religious or sectarian affiliation, that accept the strategic objectives set out above and adhere to their essence.
This limitation is based on the following principles:
1. The original Palestinian Arab population is prepared to make a historical concession. Its substance is that despite the unprecedented pain and criminal and unjust injustice inflicted upon them in the establishment and continuation of the Zionist-Ashkenazi entity in historic Palestine, they are prepared to live with the Jews who reject the project and the thought Zionist conflict in Palestine on an equal footing.
2. The “right of return” of all Palestinians who wish to return is enforced and implemented, and the “Law of Return” of the Jews, implemented today, is repealed.
3. The so-called “Jewish people” is a historical myth created, nurtured and promoted by the racist Zionist colonialist movement to justify the colonization of the indigenous peoples of historic Palestine, the theft of their land and resources, and the establishment of a foothold to extend Western imperial hegemony.
4. The non-Zionist Jewish population in the future Palestinian society is a natural population group, distinguished only by its religious affiliation. It is not an “ethnic” or “national” group, as is the case with the Christian minority in Palestine, or with Muslim minorities in France, Germany or Britain, for example. If they accept to live with us in Palestine, they have the right to express their religious-cultural values, to practice their rites and rituals, to be guaranteed by law as any other religious or sectarian minority. But this minority does not rise to the “national” level, nor is it entitled to claim the “right of self-determination”.
5. The Jewish population living in various countries in the world is an integral part of the population of those countries in which they live; they have no “historical or religious claim” to the land of Palestine as part of the “Jewish diaspora”. The promotion of the idea of the “Jewish diaspora” that has historically emerged from the land of Palestine is also a historical legend. This “historical-religious” claim is an alleged mythical claim.
During the last century, after the Zionist project began, there were a number of proposals (mainly political) for the nature of the entity that would organize the lives of the people in Palestine. In the following brief trades, I will focus on the homogeneity of these “proposed solutions” with the “strategic objectives” that have already been put forward. I will start with proposals that have a low level of coherence with strategic objectives, with the aim of removing them from the debate.
1. The idea of ”two states” – Israeli and Palestinian side by side
This idea, initiated by the Palestine Liberation Organization since 1988, is based on the following principles:
The actual division of the Palestinian people into three categories that are not interconnected, isolated and unrelated to one another, characterized and quantified politically and spatially, and their inclusion in “spreads” Political
coercion ; • Argument for the impossibility of applying the principle of “right of return”;
• To reward and accept the continuity of the existence of the Zionist-Ashkenazi-racist entity on the land of occupied Palestine;
• To prepare for the continuation of exploitation conditions for the marginalized and poor social groups;
• To create conditions that help deepen the social and economic gap between the owners of capital through their exclusive exploitation and exploitation of available resources. Of this proposition, through corruption, brokering and commercial interaction with the Zionist capital, and among the poor, whose poverty is steadily increasing, as if they are not part of this people;
• Submission and submission to the domination of the United States of America and the Western imperialist forces over Palestine and the entire Arab and Islamic region.
Without a doubt, this proposal clearly contradicts the strategic objectives, and therefore should be deleted from these trades.
2. The idea of ”Islamic State”
Although this idea has not received a lot of scrutiny and discussion, but the basic hypotheses became clear, somewhat, which can be summarized thus:
• The land of Palestine, which was occupied and dispersed by the Zionist-Western colonial project, is an Islamic stop;
• To abandon any part, no matter how small, is to abandon the approach of God and a deviation from his law;
• Since this land is occupied, Through its liberation, which is the responsibility of the Islamic Ummah, and the establishment of an Islamic state in it;
• The fundamental focus in the application of this idea is that the Islamic Palestine be ruled by religion, its laws and its leaders;
• Organizes the population according to their religious affiliations, and Christians and Jews In the practice of their faiths and religious rituals, and have no right To participate in the power of government;
• To achieve equality between the population of the State and political pluralism is out of the question.
Although the application of this idea contains the possibility of preserving the universality of the historic land of Palestine, it raises a number of issues and questions that create a clear heterogeneity with the essence of the “strategic objectives” presented above. Some of these basic issues are: freedom of choice and expression, separation of religion and political system, religion as the sole and fundamental organization of people’s social and economic lives, the nature of citizenship, political and intellectual pluralism, etc. Since this clearly and explicitly contradicts strategic objectives, it should be deleted from these trades.
3. The idea of a “bi-national state”
The references to this idea may have been the most widely circulated since the 1920s. This idea was addressed by Zionist and non-Zionist Jewish thinkers, Palestinian Arab thinkers from Al-Basar, and other intellectuals and activists from the left. It should be noted, however, that despite the old-new discussion of this idea, ambiguity and uncertainty remain. Despite this ambiguity, it is possible to determine its basic assumptions. The basic assumption is that in Palestine / Israel there are “two nationalists” (or “rival”), “Jewish nationalism” and “Palestinian nationalism.” This idea recognizes that both “nationalities” have the right to autonomy, political and cultural, which in their application may lead to “self-determination”. The implicit assumption here is that the “two nationalities” are equal and do not dominate each other.
The premise of this idea raises a number of contradictory issues and problems that need to be clarified.
• Any geographical area where this idea will be realized? In the borders of the Zionist-Ashkenazi entity “non-marginal”, or in historical Palestine? Both have prospects for achieving some Palestinian rights.
• Accepts this idea of the current Zionist structure imposed on the Palestinian Arabs of domination and domination and racial discrimination, and does not challenge the Zionist entity – the Ashkenazi, which was established by force of arms and injustice on the land of Palestine, through the purge of its original legitimate population. Indeed, this proposal is equivalent to this entity and is committed to normalization of normal relations with it.
• This idea is based on accepting the mythical Zionist assumption that the Jews in the world are a group with the constituents of a “people” and that they have a historical and religious right in the land of Palestine.
• The dismantling of the existing Zionist structure that feeds on and practices daily discrimination and its exclusive, illegal and unjust domination over the Palestinian natural resources has not been presented as a precondition for the implementation of this idea.
• The Palestinians’ “right of return” was not presented as a precondition for the implementation of this idea.
Thus, the idea of a “bi-national” state, as suggested above, may be a form of continued racial discrimination and is not necessarily a democratic development.
Based on the above analysis, the notion of a “bi-national” state presented as a means of restoring genuine Palestinian rights is not consistent with strategic objectives.
4. The idea of a “democratic (secular) state”
This idea stemmed from the womb of the Palestinian revolution following the military defeat of the Arab states in 1967 and the occupation of the rest of Palestine, Sinai and the Golan by the Israeli army. The hypotheses of this idea provoked an atmosphere of active debate over a period of four years after its introduction, until 1971. But this debate did not last, and was replaced a few years later by the “two states” proposal. It has not been resurrected vigorously for the last 10 years, but without the necessary clarifications. And settled like other ideas at the level of “slogans.”
The basic assumptions of this idea, and the main issues it raises, can be summed up as follows:
• The establishment of a modern, democratic and “secular” state in historic Palestine, where the main focus is on “democracy” rather than “secularism”;
• Palestinian acceptance that “Jews” on the land of Palestine have a place in “future Palestine” like Christians and Muslims. The conceptual problem is not with Christians or Muslims, who are the oppressed part of the indigenous population, but fall into the concept of “Israeli Jews”. In this sense, the first attempts at clarification focused on the distinction between “Jews” as a religious group, and “Zionists” as representatives of an oppressive colonialist racist ideology. Hence the focus in the initial proposal on the “secular” or “sectarian” state. However, in the absence of a clear, clear and explicit explanation, the problem was rooted in the superficial concept of dividing the population on the basis of identities or religious or sectarian affiliations.
• In the absence of this clarification, the projections of the concept of acceptance of “Israeli Jews” were not defined, and their boundaries remained unclear: was their acceptance as a “religious” group or a “national” group entitled to “self-determination”? At this level, this idea did not characterize the idea of a “bi-national” state.
Since this idea was presented from the very beginning as an “emancipatory” and “libertarian” idea, it was clear that the precondition for its implementation was the dismantling of the illegal Zionist structure in Palestine and all its consequences.
• Here too, as mentioned above, the “right of return” of the Palestinians was not presented as a precondition for the implementation of this idea, and remained a presumption.
My conclusion is that the establishment of a socialist democratic society in historic Palestine is the only idea that has the potential to be congruent with the strategic goals identified. The commitment to this idea will, in my opinion, lead to the current and future emancipation of Palestine from the Zionist-Ashkenazi-Western political and economic hegemony and to the re-control of means of production and natural resources from land and water to the power of all the people of the future Palestinian society.
Finally, why am I committed to the idea of a democratic and socialist society in historic Palestine, as an incubator to free our present and future from injustice, domination and discrimination?
Because I am committed to a just, ethical and sustainable solution that embodies the possibility of restoring the inherent Palestinian rights in our historic homeland. So solution:
Corrects and perpetuates the ongoing historical injustice, and injustice, which have afflicted us as a Palestinian people;
Maintains the unity and integrity of Palestine as an extension of the Arab homeland;
Insists on the right of return of all Palestinians who have been forcibly and criminally displaced to their land and property;
Dismantle all Zionist and Israeli Jewish structures and systems and unjust and racist laws based on the principle of the exclusion of Palestinian Arabs, with the aim of imposing Zionist hegemony over the entire region;
Calls for and promotes coexistence between Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews in the historic land of Palestine, within a democratic, non-sectarian, equal, just and non-coercive society;
Paving the way for the beginning of an authentic and sustainable development process on the land of Palestine for the benefit of all its inhabitants, especially the poor and the marginalized, by focusing on the productive and direct use of land and natural resources,
Provides an important human model of how adversaries can coexist in a given space, after purging the space of racist exclusionist ideologies and practices.