The “Palestinian State” Gambit: A Bait for Defeat
By Nidal Khalaf, published on Al-Carmel on 22 February 2024.
This article was translated by Mohammed Elabadsa, who lives with his family in Gaza. We were able to commission work from him using money raised through subscriptions and donations. We’re grateful to those who have made this possible and hope that you will keep supporting Al-Rifaq.
Sooner or later, the aggression against Gaza will conclude, compelling the parties involved to form a political resolution acceptable to the Palestinian resistance. The unwavering resilience of the resistance, alongside its regional allies and global supporters in the face of American and Zionist expansionism, has been unequivocally demonstrated. This stems, in part, from the stark reality that the current form of warfare poses an unsustainable threat to America’s regional influence and security of maritime navigation—through arteries vital to its global economic architecture. Consequently, political overtures are subtly entering the media landscape in tandem with an intense pressure campaign orchestrated by the “American Solution” front. This front, encompassing Western, Arab, and even Palestinian actors, aims to coerce the Palestinian resistance, the ultimate decision-maker on the ground, into accepting the principle of a “Palestinian state”. How should we interpret this proposition? Could such a proposal genuinely constitute a victory for the Palestinian people and the broader region?
The Bait of Defeat
The concept of a “Palestinian state” is far from novel: its meaning and form have consistently been shaped by the dynamics of conflict in the region and the prevailing balance of power. Indeed, the inaugural formal proposal emerged in UN Resolution 181 of 1947, a partition plan fundamentally designed to secure Zionist control over strategic ports, coastal regions, and the Negev. This initial iteration was merely a precursor to the “Gaza-Jericho” model, which subsequently laid the groundwork for American-brokered political arrangements. It is patently clear that the architects of the Zionist project would never countenance a Palestinian state unless it rigidly adhered to Israel’s security diktats and reinforced its dominance over all peoples in the region.
Considering the stark imbalance of power at the time, this initial proposal was undeniably a political deception aimed at legitimising the ethnic cleansing of 1948. The second iteration, the “West Bank-Gaza” model, was embraced by the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s (PLO) leadership through the 1993 Oslo Accords. This move, however, fundamentally contradicted the core tenets of the modern Palestinian revolution. Despite the significant political and security concessions made by successive PLO leaders, from Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas, and those poised to succeed him, Oslo morphed into a political trap designed to dismantle the First Intifada and facilitate the gradual expansion of Israeli settlements under the guise of Palestinian self-rule. Over the past decade, the idea of a “Palestinian state” has become a contradiction in terms because, within the two-state framework, it has only succeeded in facilitating the relentless proliferation of settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem alongside a suffocating siege on Gaza, whose aim is nothing less than the elimination of the resistance—either through gradual strangulation or through one decisive blow.
From this perspective, the reason for American and Western insistence on this idea of a “Palestinian state” becomes clear. This concept—which has been tirelessly promoted by Oslo elites and the media apparatus of American military bases as being a “recognition of Palestinian rights”—must be critically understood within the broader context of the ongoing colonial project and its inherent conditions.1 Ultimately, it entails the establishment of a “Palestinian” entity in name only, which by necessity remains subservient to Zionist objectives.
The most substantial outcome the PLO leadership secured in exchange for abandoning core Palestinian principles and actively assisting in the suppression of the First Intifada was the Palestinian Authority—an entity that materialised after the PLO’s 1982 defeat through the clear accommodationist path its leadership had adopted since 1974. Thus, a direct and undeniable correlation exists between the rise of the Palestinian state idea and the shifting balance of power against the Palestinian people. The American-promoted Palestinian state is, in essence, mere “bait” offered to solidify Zionist dominance over Palestine in exchange for superficial gains for collaborators overseeing the insidious process of slow-burn ethnic cleansing.
The Palestinian State envisioned within the American framework is not a genuine pathway to freedom but rather a form of capitulation, prioritising the superficial trappings of statehood-flags, anthems, and international recognition over the fundamental and non-negotiable goal of liberation.
The Ceiling of Steadfastness
In stark contrast, Palestinian resistance factions and their allies resolutely advocate for a unified Palestinian state encompassing all of historic Palestine. This vision, often dismissed as unrealistic by some, unequivocally prioritises liberation over statehood. The success of this vision is contingent on a Palestinian victory against colonialism, allowing them to secure the fundamental right of return for refugees, the dismantling of settlements, and the attainment of full sovereignty over their ancestral land. These foundational conditions cannot be realised under the American hegemony’s pervasive influence, meaning that a truly independent Palestinian state can only emerge from the decisive defeat of the American project in the region. Such a transformative defeat would not be confined to Palestine’s 27,027 square kilometres but would extend to dismantling all pillars of regional dominance, including the artificial fragmentation of Arab states and the network of military bases that safeguard the exploitation of resources.
In unambiguous terms, Palestinian liberation from Zionist colonisation is inextricably linked to the broader struggle to liberate the entire region from American domination. This is the paramount priority of the resistance forces in the region, spearheaded by the Palestinian resistance, which has demonstrated its unwavering steadfastness and commitment through pivotal battles such as the “Sword of Jerusalem” and “Al-Aqsa Flood”.
But where to next? There is a broad consensus that the political resolution to the ongoing aggression against Gaza will inevitably involve the proposal of a Palestinian state. From the perspective of Western colonialism, this state is strategically intended to be a new and sophisticated trap to complete the process of ethnic cleansing through alternative means. From the perspective of the Palestinian resistance, on the other hand, the minimum acceptable conditions involve consolidating Palestinian gains and establishing a robust deterrent against further aggression, particularly in light of the profound sacrifices made during “Al-Aqsa Flood”.
The impending negotiations will not allow for ambiguity or compromise on fundamental principles: a genuine Palestinian victory would signify a resounding and consequential defeat for the American project, while Palestinian concessions would inflict a catastrophic and long-lasting blow to the peoples of the entire region.
As the idea of a Palestinian state increasingly becomes the central focal point of this protracted struggle, it is more crucial than ever to revisit its fundamental essence as eloquently articulated by the martyred intellectual Ghassan Kanafani in his seminal text, Resistance is the Essence:
The movement to establish a Palestinian state must inevitably be accompanied by the movement to create the new Palestinian human being. The call for a state must be accompanied by a call to forge a new relationship among Palestinians, and between them and the Arab states. This is of equal importance to the establishment of the Palestinian state because this state will not be an ordinary state; it will be a state of transition, a state of mission, a state of purpose. Alongside the creation of the State of Palestine, we must create the people who will carry its cause forward.
In light of this enduring wisdom, and in direct response to the urgent calls of Palestinian resistance leaders, it is our inherent duty as Palestinians to clearly define the profound “mission” that our very presence on this sacred land demands, a mission that predates the inception of the Zionist project and must, without question, continue with unwavering resolve long after its inevitable demise. We, the children of the land stretching from the Mediterranean coast to the Jordan River, from Galilee to the Negev, must collectively and introspectively ask ourselves: What is our true and enduring role within the complex political, geographical, and historical tapestry of this region? To answer this question, we may find insights in the plans of the enemy.
If the Zionist entity is the imposed geographical obstacle separating Egypt from the Levant, then Palestine is the indispensable geographical, political, and cultural nexus binding the Arab nation’s two vital wings.
If the Zionist entity is the sharp dagger that cruelly separates the nation’s heartland from its strategic gulf, then Palestine is the resilient thread that will ultimately bind the deep wound.
If “Israel” is merely the instrument of the Western hegemony wielded over Arab lands, then Palestine is, and always will be, the primary arena for the Arab nations’ true and unyielding independence and the essential gateway to its long-awaited rise among the community of nations.
This is the enduring essence of Palestine. To truly realise its potential, we must collectively elevate ourselves to the profound level of this historical mission and rightfully earn the timeless title: “The people of Palestine”.
Translator’s note: “the media apparatus of American military bases” refers to the media outlets directed by countries hosting these bases, which are loyal and fully subservient to American will. Unfortunately, this applies to most regimes in the Middle East and their media, which serve the American narrative and vision in the region.