Two Strategic Allies

"Israel wants to punish the Palestinians because they have secured full membership in UNESCO, and the U.S. wants to punish UNESCO for granting the Palestinians full membership,". Given these two strategic allies, how can the State of Palestine ever be born? Given such an enemy and such a 'mediator' in the peace process, how can negotiations and diplomacy be an option? Forget about all talk of '[negotiations as] the sole option' and the notion that 'life is negotiations' [ascribed to PA negotiators]. What happened in UNSECO can be used as a 'test' for all policies and assumptions. The Palestinian gain achieved there is, firstly, a testimony to the importance of struggle and concerted effort in various international forums and bodies. The U.S. is not an inevitable fate that the world cannot avoid, just as Israel will not remain the 'foolish' region's fate. This implies that the political, legal, and diplomatic struggle and the public relations war should be given the importance they deserve. And this should not be merely on a seasonal basis that ebbs and flows, especially when it comes to legal and criminal matters given that Israel has the worst international record making it a suitable target for international justice and law. Second, the Palestinian achievement in UNSECO shows that the U.S., and not Israel, is the most ferocious enemy of the Palestinians' battle for freedom and independence. Washington –which is raising 'the banner of freedom' in the arid desert of Arab tyranny – is at the same time trampling that very same banner under its feet when the matter has to do with the Palestinians' freedom and independence. This has been proven in more than one test and on more than one occasion from the very inception of the peace process and ever since the U.S. played a 'mediating' role in it. It has been established beyond any doubt during Obama's first term in office – which, by the way,  is most likely to be his last. Thirdly, and perhaps for the thousandth time, the Palestinian 'victory' – and I apologize for putting quotation marks around the word 'victory' because I fear the deliberate exaggeration of the importance and consequences of this achievement – demonstrates that what prevented the establishment of a Palestinian state in the aftermath of the transitional Oslo Accords final phase (which ended in May 1999) was not the Palestinians' failure to build the modern institutions of their state, as Israel has claimed, and as some Palestinians – advocates of the 'life is negotiations' and of 'building the state under the occupation's skin' – have repeated after it. What prevented the establishment of the state was Israel's rejection of the two-state solution and its insistence on maintaining its occupation and expanding its settlement of occupied Palestinian lands. The Palestinians have built the institutions of a modern state. They have 'implicated themselves from tip to toe' in security coordination with the Israeli forces. The West Bank has had five years of complete calm and complete quiet in the shadow of an almost total absence of resistance. The world's various leaders, representatives, and envoys – most recently Tony Blair and Robert Serry – have testified to this. But what was the outcome? The outcome was that Washington has been leading an international campaign against their obtaining recognition. It is punishing anyone who recognizes their state. Israel is fighting a war to 'delegitimize' 'Abbas and inciting against him. It is punishing the PA for its 'terrible misdeed.' Nor is it unlikely for it to wage a war on the Palestinian people, the Authority, and its leadership – another 'Separation Wall' war in new forms, using new tools. The Palestinian 'victory' at UNESCO has shown that addressing international legitimacy, its organizations, and its bodies is a form of struggle that should not be derided. Its effects should not be belittled. However, this form of struggle is insufficient by itself, just as building state institutions is insufficient and 'negotiations' are insufficient – especially when they are conducted without any cards, agenda, or prior conditions. What is needed is to weld together all these 'struggle elements and forms' from a single strategic furnace. What is necessary is for all these 'pieces' to be joined in a single tapestry, whose main features are made more complete, the more pieces are placed in their proper place and context. The important thing is for all these forms of struggle and all these elements to be part of a popular strategy for resistance that makes raising the occupation's cost its main priority. That would be a prelude to declaring that freedom and independence have been achieved, and to gain the world's – the entire world's – recognition of a free, sovereign, and independent Palestine. We applaud the PA's performance at this level, and we call upon it to intensify its political, diplomatic, and legal offensive. We demand that it translates its words into deeds, especially as regards 'popular peaceful resistance.' Moreover, and over and above all this, we call upon it to complete all these scattered – and sometimes conflicting – steps and place them within a single, harmonious, and coordinated strategic context that begins with inter-Palestinian reconciliation and puts the Palestinian household back in order. This should proceed via the formulation of a resistance strategy that is inspired by the spirit, pulse, and tools of the Arab Spring. And it should be completed by exploring all options and choices, including that of dissolving the PA and 'returning the faulty merchandise' back to the occupation. The PA – whose leaders and spokespersons have often boasted of their success in bringing the security chaos and anarchy under control– should now achieve another impressive success by bringing the 'political chaos and anarchy' under control. It should also bring the 'anarchy of conflicting statements and positions' from its leading representatives under control. We need to know which direction the PA is heading, what it wants, what its future is, and what 'roadmap' it wishes to follow. Managing policies on a day-to-day basis is no option at all. The predictable outcome of that is catastrophe. "So should we raise our hopes to see the inter-Palestinian dialogue convening – not with the aim of sharing the cake and the benefits, and privileges of power between Fateh and Hamas, but in order to adopt strategies, formulate alternatives, and prepare plans of action for the coming phases?"