Who will liberate Palestine?

The main idea on which the Palestinian resistance was founded since its modern launch in 1965 was that the resistance or revolution is the vanguard and the introduction for the Arab and Islamic nation to liberate Palestine, meaning that the revolution, with its limited capabilities, can only do so much as fight and struggle, within the framework of reviving and then continuing the spirit of steadfastness, perseverance, and resistance among the Palestinian people, and the main idea in the beginnings is linked to the priority of armed struggle, following the example of other liberation revolutions in which the Palestinian resistance was founded under the leadership of Yasser Arafat in the bosom of their experiences and ideas.

From 1967, when the setback occurred, until 1973, the atmosphere was Arabist under the leadership of President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who dragged the nation towards the necessities of liberation. His successor completed the action with the October 1973 war, with the participation of the Arab nation. Then, what happened since then was a division within the nation between those who believed in military liberation and those who stopped it, convinced of the limits of force, and that the cards of the game were in America’s hands.

The revolution fought a fierce struggle with various Arab countries to establish its vanguard and progress, far from the refusal of most countries to participate directly in the military war. Egypt was boycotted after Camp David in 1979, but the differences in the (steadfastness and confrontation) camp were not related to the necessity of steadfastness and readiness to fight as much as they were related to the dominance of a conflicting Arab regime or regimes or leaderships.

After the signing of the final Camp David Accords, it became clear that destroying Israel militarily without the Egyptian army was very far away to the point of impossibility. Opposing ideas accumulated regarding the necessity of dealing with the current situation to show political realism, where military action sows and political action reaps. From here, the school of compromise emerged in contrast to the school of armed struggle under any circumstances, without paying attention to the major subsequent changes, such as the fall of the global ally (the Soviet Union), the Egyptian army’s withdrawal from the war, and then what happened later in the destruction of the Iraqi army and the Syrian army to narrow the options of the axis of armed struggle, and the space became wider for advocates of historical compromise.

The experience of the complete Arab and international abandonment of the Palestinian resistance in 1982 was clear, as it appeared that no nation had a real connection to the Palestinian issue, and no international (ally) was prepared to fight for you or with you, which is what the regional axis is doing today in the massacre of Palestine, especially in Gaza.

Perhaps the immortal Yasser Arafat understood the imbalanced regional and global equation early on. He was both the general and the politician, so the politician outperformed the general (the military commander), and entered into the adventure of the Madrid talks, then in Oslo, arriving at the interim agreement for 5 years (ending in 1999), so he entered Palestine.

Hardly five years had passed before the peace partner Yitzhak Rabin was killed by the Jewish extremists who rule Israel today. The political bet ended with the second great intifada, and the world appeared dazzled and at the same time distancing itself from the actual support for the Palestinian people, the only one with its resistance, so we entered the area of what has been called peaceful popular resistance since 2005, and the legal, media and diplomatic struggle to this day.

Armed struggle as the only way to liberate Palestine practically required the presence of the entire nation with its great capabilities and unity of peoples and leaderships, capabilities that have been scattered and distributed today, as the Arabs say, “the hands of Sheba are scattered.” In contrast, the Zionist occupation did not comply with international resolutions, nor with justice and right by force after half a victory, as the veteran writer Samir Atallah called it, when he said that in the “1973 war, the Arabs won half of it and lost half of it.” Nor after the peace agreements on the available land of Palestine until today.

The Zionist occupation did not comply with the peace agreements (the interim self-rule agreement, called the Oslo Accords of 1993-1995), due to the growing fascism, Zionist exclusionism and racist religion. The Palestinian dialogue with peaceful popular resistance was the goal of a solution that would lead to the independence of the State of Palestine, but the action did not produce an achievement. No state became independent on the ground, and no authority emerged from the clutches of Zionist control. The coup was within a new old logic, namely the Iranian (axis of resistance and defiance) this time versus the Arab, who had made up his mind. The Palestinians fell between the facts of the ground and the ambitions of the future, or starting from where the first ones started, without realizing the meaning of the American becoming our immediate neighbor on the shores of Haifa, Jaffa and Gaza.

The East, in light of the known endings today of separation and after the massacre of the era in Gaza (2023-2024 AD), is that all Palestinian factions with beginnings or those that came with consequences have realized the limits of the goal of the independence of the State of Palestine on the available land, i.e. the 1967 borders, and no one says otherwise (with the exception of Islamic Jihad).

Whereas our mobilization and historical concept, which never ceases to emphasize the differences between land, homeland, and political entity until victory, must never be neglected, reaching this stage, even after early or late awareness, after a bloody coup, and fragmentation on both sides of the axes, and after dozens of visits to world capitals and the beginning of the disappearance of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, it was necessary to lead to establishing a firm milestone on the road, rejecting all differences, and elevating the status of agreements.

Let me go back to the title: Who will liberate Palestine? Here, before answering, we must consider the concept from its origin or the goal and the scope of agreement on it in Palestine, so that we can move to the Arab and then Islamic levels, so that we do not fall under the hooves of the horses of ambitions or dreams of the countries of the region with special interests in their regimes, far from the actual reality and very far from the issue, and far from what we want in exchange for what we can, or what we must never forget forever, that Palestine is ours, and what must be maintained in terms of actions until God decrees a matter that was done.