Uncategorized

After the legitimacy of “Oslo” ended, how to rearrange the Palestinian house?


Despite the rush of events and the acceleration of the pace of events in Palestine, the mind does not lose sight of the need to rearrange the Palestinian house, and in this context the need appears more urgent to rebuild and frame a set of concepts and determinants, in order to contribute to creating an integrated vision of the future outcomes of the Palestinian cause, and even about Palestinian house shape.

What creates the need today more than ever to work on reframing Palestinian national concepts is the clear contradiction between the voice of the people and the voice of politicians. Between the authoritarian and authoritarian political stance on issues such as Arab normalization and the transfer of the American embassy to Jerusalem, and the comprehensive popular stance that extends over a geographical area that transcends the borders of the Palestinian homeland during the events of Al-Aqsa Mosque and Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, there is a stark contradiction and a huge gap.

This contradiction and the great gap in concepts and perceptions became evident in an incident killed Political opponent Nizar Banat at the hands of Palestinian Authority security forces, and their handling of the demonstrators condemning this incident.

conflicting concepts

The origin is that political projects in any country are created and built on clear political concepts and determinants, which represent the signs of the political road, and the need for a conceptual framework seems more urgent in the Palestinian case, because the people are under occupation and have a project and great liberation hopes. Also, the frameworks that unite the Palestinian people have been fragmented and distorted since the decade Oslo agreement. “Oslo” is what produced the Palestinian Authority in its current form and structure, which in turn transformed the Palestinian people from a people resisting the occupier to a people at the mercy of an administrative authority that is not worthy of being an internationally recognized state and that is not easy to overthrow.

The resulting gap between the popular and the political framework created scope for conflicting concepts. The actions and decisions of the Palestinian Authority today, whether politically or on the security front, are only part of the repercussions of that conflict.

That inconsistency and the absence of enlightening concepts of the path to liberation, are all dilemmas that made betraying the liberation project of the Palestinian people a point of view that could be discussed.

Therefore, it is necessary to work on defining the conceptual frameworks of the Palestinian cause and the determinants of the national project.

Expired legality

First, the Palestinian popular vision of the issue is one of liberation without compromise, and this is what the confrontations with the occupation are reminded of over and over again. This liberation vision is what prompted the Palestinian people to previously join the factions of the Liberation Organization, led by the “Fatah” movement, and it was the motive of the Palestinian people to give the PLO factions confidence, as it expressed the aspirations of the Palestinian people and their yearning for freedom and independence. Therefore, we must return things to the first stage, ie liberation in the face of occupation.

Second, the signing of the Oslo Accords was a partisan option that did not enjoy popular approval, and was not submitted to any referendum. Only the historical and political contexts made the PLO a representative of the Palestinian people, but “Oslo” and what was built on it were not Palestinian. It is not intended here to deny what the “liberation organization” factions have presented, nor to erase their history, but the existence of partisan interest and motives cannot be overlooked when some parties are unilaterally in power and take fateful decisions, based on unpopular legitimacy, but rather imposed in a specific context.

Third, when the head of the authority in a country in the world is the head of a political current or a particular party, the party bears, politically and morally, the policies and actions of the authority, and that is one of the axioms of politics. It is impossible for the ruling party to distance itself from the policies and actions of the president and its representative in power.

How if all the party’s spokespersons and leaders justified the illegal and immoral actions and policies of the authority, as is the case with the spokespersons of the “Fatah” movement today, who did not say a word about the assault and beating of the demonstrators who objected to the “assassination” of political activist Nizar Banat. Only a few of Fatah’s cadres objected to this overreach, but verbally and ashamedly.

Fourth, if we put the “legitimacy of Oslo” aside, the dilemma of the authority’s electoral illegitimacy has been going on for nearly a decade and a half. Electively, the Fatah movement’s leadership in power is an expired leadership. The movement lost the last legislative elections in 2006, and is still ruling with regional and international support, under the pretext of (artificial) division.

Conclusion

Accordingly, if we, as a Palestinian nation, want real change and a liberating project, we must start by changing our concepts and our view of the entire system, “Oslo”, “the Liberation Organization” in its current form as the sole representative of the Palestinian people, and the authority that today has become an obstacle to the liberation project and is not part of the solution. Any Palestinian movement must be against the authority first, because its project is in no way compatible with any Palestinian liberation project. The presence of the authority relieves the occupation of a great international burden, as whoever bears the responsibility of the Palestinian people internationally today is the authoritarian authority on the back of the issue. Work must be done to rebuild concepts, not only popularly, but even factually, by working to clearly and clearly remove the defeatist project of power outside any political calculations. It is no longer acceptable to rely on a revolutionary legacy, which has become a thing of the past, to continue an authoritarian project that harms the Palestinian people and delays their liberation.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button