Marwan Barghouti: Key to Unity and Settlement","seo_title":"Marwan Barghouti: Key to Unity and Settlement

Marwan Barghouti is not merely a Palestinian prisoner who has spent nearly three decades behind bars, nor just a prominent leader in the Fatah movement. Rather, he is one of the most prominent leaders who embodies an entire trajectory of the development of the Palestinian national movement, with all its sacrifices and transformations, and its transition from popular resistance to the pursuit of a just political settlement based on international legitimacy, without abandoning immutable national rights.Perhaps his recurring return to the forefront of attention is explained not only by his standing within Palestinian society, but also by his position in regional and international political calculations. Whenever the need arises to rebuild the Palestinian political system, restore its unity, or search for a leadership that enjoys broad national legitimacy, the name Marwan Barghouti reappears as one of the few names whose presence transcends organizational and factional boundaries, touching upon the idea of inclusive national leadership.The issue is not just about a person, but about what he represents as a possibility for the convergence of three elements rarely found in a single political figure: militant legitimacy, popular presence, and the ability to address the political future away from the logic of endless conflict management.Barghouti rose through the ranks of the national movement from his early youth, and was one of the most prominent leaders of the student and national movement in the West Bank during the 1970s and 1980s. Along with a whole generation of field, trade union, and popular leaders, he contributed to creating the organizational, political, and popular environment that paved the way for the outbreak of the Great Palestinian Intifada in 1987.Despite his expulsion from the homeland before its outbreak, from his position abroad, he became one of the most prominent leaders supporting the Intifada politically and organizationally, alongside the martyr Khalil al-Wazir (Abu Jihad), who was one of the most prominent leaders who supported the Intifada and its unified national leadership. After his assassination in 1988, Barghouti continued this role within the framework of working with President Yasser Arafat, before returning to the homeland in April 1994.This path was not merely a transition between organizational positions, but an expression of his belonging to a national school that believed that political and popular struggle does not contradict the search for a historical solution that ends the occupation and achieves freedom, independence, and return. This school understood that the strength of any Palestinian leadership is measured not only by its ability to endure, but also by its ability to transform sacrifices into a viable political project.Marwan Barghouti was not a proponent of peace at any cost, nor was he an advocate of managing the conflict as an eternal fate. He started from a clear political conviction that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict can only end with the end of the occupation, the embodiment of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination, and the establishment of their independent state based on international legitimacy resolutions and international law.Peace does not mean abandoning rights, but rather that both parties realize that a historical settlement, if based on mutual recognition and a minimum of justice, is the only way out of the cycle of open conflict. Therefore, leaders capable of making peace are not necessarily the most accepted in moments of confrontation, but rather the most capable of convincing their people that possible peace is better than endless war.This is what national leaders in various conflicts have realized throughout history. The strength needed for peace is not only the strength of weapons, but the strength of legitimacy and the ability to bear the responsibility of historical decisions. Only leaders who possess the trust of their people can move from the stage of conflict to the stage of settlement without losing their national legitimacy.This understanding intersected with the vision of a number of Palestinian national leaders, and perhaps with some Israeli leaders who experienced the cost of the bloody conflict, but lacked the political will and courage necessary to move towards a historical settlement whose essence is the recognition of the rights of the Palestinian people as defined by international legitimacy, and not a settlement between masters and slaves as most successive Israeli governments have tried to impose, especially the current government.Segments of the Israeli right have gambled on the possibility of weakening the Palestinian leadership or producing a leadership that accepts less than what the Palestinian people can accept, instead of confronting the essence of the conflict and addressing its historical and political causes. The result was a tragic path represented by the assassination of Yasser Arafat, the arrest of Marwan Barghouti, and then the continued targeting of political paths and figures associated with more pragmatic options within the Palestinian arena, which, along with other Palestinian, regional, and international factors, contributed to paving the way for the rise of the extreme Israeli right, the Daesh-like national religious right, and racist currents that see the continuation of the conflict as a tool to preserve their political project.Marwan Barghouti's importance does not come from being a copy of Yasser Arafat, for each has his own historical context and personal and political characteristics, but the comparison between them imposes itself when discussing the nature of Palestinian leadership capable of dealing with major moments of transformation.Yasser Arafat was the leader of the contemporary political founding phase of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the man who succeeded, through decades of national work, in transforming the Palestinian issue from a refugee issue to an issue of a people with internationally recognized political rights. He possessed an exceptional ability to build the Palestinian national movement and maintain its presence despite complex regional and international circumstances, and then made the historical decision to move from the logic of revolution to the logic of state and political settlement.As for Marwan Barghouti, his personality was shaped in a different generation; the generation of the First Palestinian Intifada, which grew up under direct occupation, and experienced the Palestinian people's ability for mass action and popular organization within the homeland. Therefore, his presence gained from the position of a field and political leader who combined organizational work and popular presence, before becoming one of the most prominent Palestinian figures who linked national struggle with the need for a serious political horizon to end the conflict.The most important similarity between the two men lies not only in belonging to a single political and national school, but in the nature of the legitimacy they relied on, which is a legitimacy stemming from direct national experience, and from the ability to address the people, not from an imposed position or external legitimacy. Both understood that any Palestinian leadership capable of making historical decisions first needs the trust of its people and national institutions based on popular participation.However, the difference between them is no less important than the similarity. Arafat led the PLO at a time when the Palestinian national movement was fighting a battle to establish the political existence of the Palestinian issue at the international level, and then went through the experience of governance with all its complexities and contradictions after the establishment of the National Authority. Barghouti, on the other hand, remained away from exercising executive power, which kept him out of many of the burdens of the daily experience of governance, but at the same time deprived him of the opportunity to test his political and institutional vision in managing practical reality.Nevertheless, the most prominent common factor remains the same historical question: how can a people under occupation preserve their national rights, and at the same time have a leadership capable of making difficult decisions when a real opportunity arises?Arafat ultimately realized that peace requires an Israeli partner capable of making painful decisions, just as it requires a Palestinian leadership that possesses the legitimacy to bear the responsibility for those decisions. Perhaps Barghouti's importance, for those who see him as a figure capable of playing a historical role, lies in his possession of some of the components of this equation: a militant history that grants him legitimacy, a political vision that opens the door to settlement, and a potential ability to address a wide Palestinian public.However, any historical role for Marwan Barghouti, as for any other Palestinian leader, cannot succeed outside the framework of rebuilding democratic national institutions, ending the division, and restoring the unity of Palestinian decision-making. Symbols may open doors, but they alone cannot build the future. Only strong institutions and popular legitimacy are capable of transforming historical moments into a sustainable national project.Ultimately, the issue is not Marwan Barghouti as a person, nor about transforming any leader into a substitute for the people or for national institutions. Peoples do not build their future with symbols alone, no matter their historical standing, but with democratic institutions, popular legitimacy, and the ability to transform sacrifices and aspirations into a viable political project.But history also teaches us that some personalities, in moments of great transformation, become more than just individuals. They embody the experiences of generations, and carry in their presence the possibility of overcoming divisions and opening new paths. Hence comes the importance of Marwan Barghouti, not as the only solution, but as one of the most prominent potential keys to rebuilding an inclusive Palestinian national center, capable of combining internal unity and realistic political vision.Therefore, the first step that cannot be bypassed by Palestinians is to restore internal legitimacy through presidential elections followed by free legislative elections, which rebuild the relationship between the people and their leadership, and pave the way for renewing national institutions on the basis of participation, accountability, and ending the division.Elections are not just an internal Palestinian matter, but are part of the conflict equation itself. For a people cannot enter a new historical stage without a leadership based on a clear popular mandate, nor can any international or regional party deal seriously with a Palestinian partner unless this partner stems from the will of its people and its institutions.In contrast, Israel also faces a historical imperative that cannot be escaped. Experience has proven that military force, no matter how great, cannot produce lasting peace or security. Israel must learn lessons from the history of the conflict, and realize that its future cannot be built on genocide and the continuation of occupation or annexation or conflict management, but on the recognition that true security is linked to ending the causes of the conflict.It is noteworthy that Marwan Barghouti's name is no longer present only in Palestinian and Israeli discussions, but has also appeared in international political calculations. US President Donald Trump referred to him by name during discussions related to the prisoner exchange deal and stopping the "war" in Gaza, reflecting an understanding that the issue of Palestinian leadership must be part of any long-term political arrangements. This puts Trump to a real test that is consistent with his political pragmatism. Will he be content with managing crises and making temporary deals, or will he realize that Israel's own interest does not lie in open wars, but in a historical settlement that ends the conflict?Despite Trump's known biases towards Israel, any realistic reading of the future of the region should lead him to realize a fundamental truth: that the Israeli people's need for peace is no less than the Palestinians' need for this peace to be just, because the continuation of the conflict threatens to turn Israel's military power into a permanent strategic burden.However, this peace cannot be born from policies driven by the logic of annexation, liquidation, and absolute force. The path taken by successive Israeli governments, from the acceleration of annexation projects, the expansion of settlements, and attempts to politically liquidate the Palestinian issue, all the way to the war of genocide in the Gaza Strip, as described by many experts and international human rights organizations, reveals the depth of the crisis facing the future of the region.Peace is not built on the ruins of a people, nor on an attempt to erase a deeply rooted national identity, nor on imposing a permanent reality by force. Attempts to subjugate the Palestinian people or bypass their national rights will not end the issue, but will reproduce the conflict in more dangerous forms. Therefore, any real opportunity to exit this path requires effective international intervention, not limited to crisis management or temporary ceasefires, but working within the framework of international law and international legitimacy resolutions.What is required is not just a new agreement, but a change in the rules of the game; Palestinian internally through restoring legitimacy and unity and building institutions, Israeli through moving from the logic of control to the logic of recognizing Palestinian national rights, and internationally through taking responsibility for ending a conflict that has lasted longer than it should.In this equation, Marwan Barghouti remains a symbol of a question larger than himself: Can Palestinians and Israelis transform decades of conflict into the beginning of a new path, or will everyone remain prisoners of the logic of war that has produced nothing but more blood and losses?Peace between enemies is possible, but it requires leaders who possess legitimacy and courage, and an international community that possesses the will to prioritize the logic of law over the logic of force.