The mother of the issues in the Middle East

Listen to the article. The audio text is automated, generated by an automated system

With the third anniversary of the events of October 7, 2023, a few days ago, the question that was absent amid the noise of the first days returns: Where do we go with the Palestinian issue? Since that day, the Middle East has witnessed a number of its most violent political, economic, and humanitarian crises, and I fear that what we have seen is a prelude to what is even more severe, if the conflict continues to be managed with the same mentality. In this place, months after the event, I wrote an article entitled “Gaza: Things Are Coming to an End,” in February 2024, warning of the scale of the coming catastrophe. This was not astrology, but rather a reading of the balance of power and the way of thinking of the other party. The results were close to what I feared, and I find no reason to be satisfied with that.

Palestine is the mother of all issues in the Middle East, and perhaps one of the most important issues in the modern world. The rights of a people uprooted from their land, religious and historical memory, settler colonialism, and international interests intersect, making its solution falter, generation after generation. The people of the region sympathize with it for understandable reasons, and many outside it share this, rejecting the injustice done to the Palestinians. Sympathy, no matter how broad it is, requires a policy that turns it into gains. Here the experiment faltered repeatedly, and the Palestinian began to pay the price of the occupation, and the price of the mistakes of those who take the lead in speaking in its name.

Two heavy factors stand in the way of the solution: the extremism of the Israeli right, and the absence of a decisive American decision that makes the establishment of a Palestinian state an implementable commitment. There are important European transformations, some of which have gone beyond rhetoric to recognition of Palestine, and there is a Saudi effort with Arab and European partners to revive the two-state solution. However, settlement and the fragmentation of Palestinian land make it unlikely to be implemented. Closing the political horizon gives extremists a new opportunity, and also gives regional powers wishing to intervene ready material to expand their influence.

We have known this usage for decades. The Nakba of Palestine was one of the factors that paved the way for the rise of the military, and then the issue became a source of legitimacy for regimes that promised liberation and demanded that their people remain silent awaiting the battle. A wide audience believed those promises. The wound was real, and the hope for salvation was great. Years passed, freedoms narrowed, development declined, the land remained occupied, and the occupation even expanded. Palestine was not responsible for the failure of those systems, but its name was used to protect failure from accountability, to postpone people’s demands for a decent life, and to think scientifically to confront the crisis.

Then revolutionary Iran came with a religious-sectarian discourse, and found in the issue a gateway to Arab societies and to building influence beyond its borders. This was helped by understandable Palestinian frustration, but it does not necessarily make the resulting choices correct. Palestinian parties entered into alliances with military and Baathist regimes, then some of them bet on the Iranian project and moved away from moderate Arab countries. These factions mixed between those who wanted a settlement that would return the Palestinians their land, and those who needed the conflict to continue to maintain their role. Mistakes accumulated, and the people’s share of the loss was greater than the share of the decision-makers.

The exploitation of Palestinian oppression extended to the discourse of the Houthis, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Takfiri groups. It is not correct to reduce the emergence of these organizations to Palestine, but the issue was present in their propaganda to recruit angry people. As for calculating the results, it was absent. In contrast, the Zionist movement built institutions, forged alliances, and invested in knowledge and organizing interests, in addition to using violence and displacement. This does not give it a right to another land, but it explains part of the imbalance in the confrontation.

The Palestinian paid the price in killing, displacement, and demolition, and many years behind bars. This review does not mean relieving Israel of its responsibility for the occupation and its crimes, as the responsibility is clear. The point is that the justice of the cause does not protect its leaders from error, and that acknowledging the error is a condition for correcting it, especially when its cost is the lives of entire generations and their futures. I believe that the review begins with a simple question: What did each option add to the Palestinian’s ability to remain in his land and extract his rights? Palestinian thinkers asked courageous questions about means, alliances, and the cost of adventure, and some of them faced betrayal and marginalization. It is not possible to build a successful policy if criticism of the decision becomes an attack on the issue. People who have suffered losses have the right to question their leaders, and to distinguish between the sacrifice imposed on them and the risk that was decided without their participation. The review also requires reforming the Palestinian house, renewing the legitimacy of its institutions, unifying its decision-making, and presenting a program that can address the world in its language and interests. International recognition requires legal and diplomatic follow-up, and pressure that prevents settlement, protects the population, and allows the reconstruction of what has been destroyed. This is hard work, but its results are measurable.

It is not enough to gain the sympathy of a European street, then lose its influence with a speech that confuses all Jews with Israel's policies, or with a blind act that gives our opponents the opportunity to distort Palestinian rights. This is a political and moral responsibility that cannot be evaded. Today we have two trends: an effort led by Saudi Arabia with Arab and European countries to open the path to a Palestinian state, and a trend that prolongs the conflict and benefits from forces expanding their influence in the name of saving Palestine. The success of the first requires unified Palestinian support, and holding Washington to its responsibility. But the long-tested alternative leaves the Palestinian facing accumulated losses, and leaves his sponsors negotiating for their own interests. Continuing on the same path may make the future worse than the most pessimistic of us expects.

Or issues that deserve a discussion that is not governed by one-upmanship, and action that calculates potentials and protects human beings. The Palestinian is more entitled to both his land and his life.

Final words: In the world of politics, opportunities require leadership that combines courage and wisdom.

Quoted from "Asharq Al-Awsat"