Reshaping Political Thought in the New Middle East... Between State Borders and Peoples' Rights

In light of the geopolitical and regional transformations, we must return to the events and outcomes of the post-9/11 period and the plans associated with the idea of the “New Middle East.” It seems clear that there is a redrawing of borders and a reshaping of political thought in the region, and a fundamental question arises here about the goals of the Palestinian struggle: Do the Palestinian people seek a state within the 1967 borders, or is the primary goal freedom and independence regardless of borders?

This question needs special study after the recent developments in the region, where we are witnessing the implementation of an American-Israeli policy that was adopted to create a Greater Israel in the Middle East. This vision includes expanding Israel's borders not only by annexing land in the West Bank through the settlement policy, but also by destroying the political regimes or unofficial actors in the countries of the region (whether opposition or resistance movements) that support the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders, which means clear borders for Israel, and this is what America and Israel do not want. The world voted by an absolute majority for the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the American rejection was explicit and not shy, so we must realize the fact that what is happening in the region from demonizing the resistance movements or the fall of successive Arab regimes, and the progressive normalization Abraham Accords, all come within the strategy of war under the pretext of eliminating what they called the "axis of evil", and we have witnessed this policy in Lebanon, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and now Syria.

In reshaping political thought, the logic of political realism emerges, which states that the Palestinian issue has never been merely an issue of borders or geography, but rather an issue of liberation and dignity. The borders that represent the June 4, 1967 line may be a political reference for negotiations and proposed solutions that guarantee rights, but they do not encapsulate the struggle of the Palestinian people, which extends to their historical right to self-determination, return to their homeland, and live in freedom and dignity on their land. The call to establish a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders comes in the context of seeking a political solution proposed by the international community to end the occupation and put an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people. However, at the same time, it may sometimes be reduced to a narrow framework that does not address the essence of the issue, as borders are a condition for recognizing states and a tool for achieving independence, but they do not necessarily express the ultimate goal of liberation from all forms of occupation and settlement, and the restoration of the historical and sovereign rights of the Palestinian people. If borders are the framework, then freedom and independence are the essence. The Palestinian people, as history has shown, are struggling to regain their usurped rights, whether these rights are in Jerusalem, Gaza, the West Bank, or in the diaspora. Liberation means ending the occupation in all its forms, whether settlement, military, or political, and establishing a fully sovereign state that provides its people with dignity and freedom without external restrictions.

Talking about a new Middle East poses additional challenges, as “political realism” is marketed as an alternative to complete liberation, and economic or geographical solutions are proposed that ignore national rights. However, the Palestinian people, with their long history of struggle, realize that freedom is not reduced to lines drawn on maps, and that borders will be meaningless if they do not achieve dignity and full sovereignty. The Palestinian people are fully aware that economic or security solutions, although necessary, do not replace political solutions. The answer to this question lies in the will of the Palestinian people themselves, and in their ability to adhere to their legitimate rights despite all the challenges. The ultimate goal must remain freedom in all its meanings: freedom of the land, freedom of the human being, and freedom to make decisions away from any pressures or dictates. These people believe that borders may be a step towards achieving this goal, but they are not the end, and here I emphasize that the stability of the Middle East is in danger as long as Israel’s borders are not drawn.

Freedom and independence are the foundation upon which any discussion of the future of the Palestinian state must be built. This is the choice that befits a people that has made sacrifices and faced all forms of oppression to remain committed to its rights and national identity. In this dialectical equation, we cannot deny that this ideology, which presents the principles of individual freedom on the borders of a neoliberal system, serves the project of the Greater State of Israel, and this is what we are witnessing within the framework of the new Middle East.

In light of Israeli policies aimed at imposing new facts on the ground, from Jerusalem to the Golan Heights to expand settlements, and attempts to establish an isolated “Gaza State” and annex what they call “Judea and Samaria,” the question becomes more urgent, and is adopted by pragmatists, supporters of the realist school: Will the Palestinians accept solutions that restrict their aspirations within narrow geographical borders, or will they continue their struggle to achieve a comprehensive vision of liberation and independence?