In Jerusalem and between the realization of the state and the dilemmas of the interim solution and the division

Written by: Imad Afif Al-Khatib

It is said, “There are always two sides to the same story.” This applies to some of the pivotal stations in the liberation march of the Palestinian people, which launched a popular revolution against an injustice that was established under an “internationalist” cover and still is. The first station began based on the right to armed and political struggle and struggle to liberate the entire land and to reject all forms of "diplomatic action" because it means negotiation that leads to unacceptable concessions. On this basis, the Palestine Liberation Organization was established and the Palestinian national liberation movement was launched to preserve and protect the national identity and to prepare for the liberation of the land. The launch unites the Palestinians in all their places of residence around their legitimate representative, as he is the one who revived and strengthened the unity of identity and destiny in its most beautiful form.

At the end of the seventies of the last century, the second stage of the march began, when the political transformations in the Middle East led to the crystallization of two contradictory aspects representing the "dream" and "reality" or the liberation of "the entire land" and the "interim solution". At this point, the National Council, in its twelfth and thirteenth sessions, endorsed the importance of gaining official international recognition and joining regional and international institutions.

Here, communication and "diplomatic action" began to take on a wider space in the political struggle, with the aim of achieving political standing supported by a realistic view of the possibility of reaching an interim solution. With the beginning of the decline of the star of the Soviet Union and the uniqueness of the United States of America as a dominant global superpower, the opinion of the side that believed that the solution cards were in the hands of the United States of America and that what was required was to open channels of diplomatic communication with it.

In response to this approach, the first American initiatives were announced in September of 1982 by President Ronald Reagan, which coincided with the exit of the Palestinian national liberation movement from Lebanon battered with wounds after a legendary steadfastness and a heroic field confrontation that revived and strengthened the right of the Palestinian people to their independent homeland.

In its sixteenth session (1983), the Palestinian National Council expressed its rejection of the American initiative because it denies the right of return, self-determination and recognition of the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. This was the beginning of a clear shift in the national march, because it showed a "diplomatic" side that accepted the American initiative in principle if the conditions set by the Council were met. This session constituted a milestone in the history of the Palestinian struggle because it clearly demonstrated the other side of national liberation, reinforced by the decisions of the seventeenth session (1984) held in Amman, which included recognition of diplomatic action, including opening channels of communication with the "Jewish forces" in support of Palestinian rights.

During the session of the Palestinian National Council in Algeria in April 1987, the decisions issued by it reflected the impasse that the national liberation march had reached, with the presence of multiple divisions in the Arab community, and great restrictions on the institutions of the Palestine Liberation Organization, especially with regard to its support for the steadfastness of the Palestinian people in confronting the occupation.

A few months later, the Palestinian Intifada broke out, which unified the Palestinians and showed the ugly face of the occupation and revealed the masks of its supporters. The popular uprising paved the way for a new stage in the national march that adopted "diplomatic action" as a primary method in an attempt to save what could be saved. As for the reference to the "phased solution", it had two aspects. It could be an "opportunity" or a "trap", both of which are very expensive.

And after decades of stagnation in our place in the predicament of the "interim solution", we entered into the dilemma of division, which threatens our unity and exposes us as weak before the world. Today, as we witness the launch of a new round of national dialogue in order to end the division, we repeat our message to all the national dialogue parties that what bridges the gap between the two sides is their standing before their national responsibility and their agreement on the unity of the compass and the goal.