Two catastrophes, two uprisings between them

Between December 8, 1987 and 2024, there are not only thirty-seven years. The great uprising that erupted in the Jabalia Revolution Camp, as it was called, was in fact the culmination of a revolution that had been sparked in the fifties and sixties of the last century in response to the Palestinian Nakba of 1948, only to find itself in the midst of an Arab defeat in June 1967. The popular uprising in the homeland at that time outperformed the refugee revolution on the borders of the surrounding countries. It is true that the uprising was the fruit of the achievements of the Palestinian revolution, but it is also true that it presented a model of struggle that introduced the justice of the Palestinian cause into every home in the world, restored its status, and at the time put an end to all attempts at annexation, obliteration, and dissolution of identity, not only in the Arab, regional, and international forums that the PLO had previously accomplished, but also in the human conscience of the peoples of the earth as a whole.

Some have tried to place the responsibility for the decline and political fragmentation that occurred after Oslo on the Intifada, without even examining the responsibility of the leadership that hastened the fruits of that Intifada to save itself, in the midst of the international transformations following the Gulf War, and the fall of the socialist camp led by the Soviet Union, i.e. the Arab and international incubators of the Palestine Liberation Organization at that time.

It was not fate that the authority, as the fruit of a people’s struggle, would end up where it is today. However, the achievements of decades of struggle crowned by the Great Intifada were placed in the hands of an unclear settlement, and in an authoritarian structure that failed to define the nature of that stage, as it is the illusion of a settlement capable of achieving independence, and the leadership’s lack of an objective vision of the nature of the stage, and what it calls for in terms of a philosophy of governance that requires an institutional structure whose essence is the ability to strengthen the people’s steadfastness, enabling them to continue engaging in the national struggle through popular means of a deeply democratic nature that the Intifada itself created. But more dangerous than that is that the Palestinian situation was divided into two paths, the first of which was practiced by the official leadership, in terms of the illusion of the ability of its negotiators to achieve national independence, despite the popular isolation that was gradually worsening, due to the authority’s policies on the internal level, while those who rejected the settlement betrayed this path, based on the belief in the possibility of defeating the occupation through martyrdom operations, in a clear neutralization from both directions of the people and their fighting ability and their popular role in the battles of democratic construction and national liberation.

Meanwhile, the Israeli occupation government, which did not view the political process as anything but a "Deversoir" to circumvent the achievements of the Intifada in the Palestinian, Israeli and international consciousness alike, was misleading everyone by ending the conflict, at a time when it continued to strengthen its settlement project without committing not only to the Palestinians' right to self-determination, but also to retracting most of what Oslo itself stipulated regarding redeployment from the area called (C), which was supposed to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority, civilly and security-wise, eighteen months after the inauguration of the Legislative Council, which took place on March 7, 1996, i.e. in September 1997, which was never implemented.

Without going into details that this article does not have room for, Israel succeeded in thwarting the settlement process, just as we failed to transform the structure of the authority into a lever to strengthen the steadfastness of the people. The political leadership became aware of the Israeli intentions regarding the settlement process, which absolutely refuses to recognize the national rights of the Palestinian people, foremost among which is their right to self-determination, which was absent from the mutual recognition letters and from the entire text of the Oslo Declaration of Principles. This culminated in that stage with the Israeli coup against the settlement, and set a trap for the Palestinian leadership to go towards the option of the second intifada under the illusion of improving the conditions of negotiation without a national review and agreement on a unified political vision that might achieve this goal. This enabled Sharon to link that intifada to the global war on terrorism, declare his war on the authority and its institutions, and impose new conditions that the Palestinian Authority is still stuck in, which actually paved the way for settlement expansion and the imposition of a siege on the Gaza Strip, in the context of Israel’s efforts to separate the Gaza Strip from the West Bank, which is being subjected to the most heinous settlement, annexation and Judaization schemes, in order to prevent the establishment of a state. Palestinian persistence even in the context of the concept of the so-called “two-state solution,” which means giving Israel veto power, while it continues to destroy any possibility of achieving this, and even openly declares this, including the Knesset’s decision to reject the establishment of a Palestinian state, which was approved by an overwhelming majority of both the coalition and the opposition.

What to do?

It is quite clear that there is a Zionist consensus on rejecting the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, and that the fascist government led by Netanyahu believes that it is capable of creating a new Middle East that constitutes an environment for claiming victory not only over the Palestinian people, but also over the peoples of the region, especially in the context of its attempts to dismantle and/or contain Syria and some of Syria’s neighboring countries. This is at a time when the leadership dominating the Palestinian scene, despite the passage of 430 days of mass genocide and ethnic cleansing, is still maneuvering and refraining from taking any step to confront the strategy implemented by the Israeli government of genocide and annexation, especially in terms of reviewing its positions, whether regarding the unification of the country and the political system at the level of the organization and the authority, and re-adapting the structure of the authority itself in terms of its main function represented in strengthening the people’s ability to withstand, and what this requires in terms of bias towards the requirements of unity, and not continuing on the path of the illusion of settlement without providing its own conditions, foremost of which is national unity and a unified national strategy and leadership within the framework of the comprehensive national institutions within the PLO with the participation of all nationals, and accelerating the formation of a transitional consensus government as stipulated in the Beijing Declaration, according to national priorities to heal the wounds of Gaza, and restore hope to its afflicted people, starting with stopping the criminal war and reaching relief and reconstruction, in addition to building institutions and a national economy capable of mobilizing the energy of the Palestinian people in confronting the annexation and liquidation plans.

Finally, if there are any lessons to be learned from the Syrian issue and its outcome, the first of these is not to be dependent on foreign powers, in addition to the fact that the people alone are capable of protecting their regime, and what this requires in terms of requirements, the first of which is radical political reform as an alternative to exclusivity, isolation and hegemony. This is the case of recognized countries, so what about a people under occupation, living daily under the burden of genocide, annexation and the risk of liquidation in light of dangerous variables that require immediate and radical change, and not waiting for what Trump and others offer. Then, and only then, will the people of the uprising and the stubborn national struggle, despite their wounds and enormous sacrifices that are subject to being squandered, be in the field of steadfastness and defending their future and national destiny in this country, and confronting the fascism of Zionist dreams in a new Nakba.