DFLP Site
The Web
 
 
 

Articles & Analyses

 
The Defeat in its Fiftieth Year
By: Mohammad Al-Sahli
June 5, 2017
 

The entitlements of the defeat of 1967 can't be promoted without the reconsideration of the unified liberating national program.

While the Palestinians had begun the path of their return to their homes and properties, the June aggression took place, and the result was adding to their plight of Nakba, the burden of defeat and its consequences. Thus, the contemporary Palestinian revolution found itself in the face of "new" tasks that its answers to its urgent questions required years until it was able to clarify the national liberation program under the banner of PLO, which enabled the Palestinians to destroy the attempts of eliminating their national identity.

If the founders of the Zionist project in Palestine, succeeded in imposing displacement on the majority of Palestinian people in the territories of 48, but they found themselves facing a very different demographic map in the territories that occupied in the aggression of 1967, which push them to make their way to loot the land and Judaize it through deploying the settlements to prevent the possibility of establishing an independent Palestinian state.

Fifty years have passed since the defeat, and the land remains the core of conflict in an open battle between the occupation and land's owners.

Since June defeat, some voices have raised to claim the need to separate the entitlements of Nakba from tasks that have been heavily introduced by the defeat on the levels of Palestinian national action.

The owners of these voices felt that the contemporary Palestinian revolution, which broke out a few years before June aggression, did not have the ability to carry out the tasks that were resulted by Nakba, in addition to the tasks that were resulted by the defeat of 1967.

In practice, these calls were a support for the political projects of occupation, in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, in the context of the exerted efforts to form "Palestinian leaderships" that contend against the PLO in its representation of the Palestinian people and disrupt the proposed tasks on the Palestinian revolution. The aim of the Israeli project, at that time, was to stop the national liberation program that PLO had succeeded in clarifying it with the adoption of the interim program in the Palestinian National Council. The role of the so-called "villages ties" and all forms by the occupation to devote separating the land issue from the future of occupied Palestinian territories by the 1967 aggression, have been declined by diminishing the Palestinian aspiration to the limits of demands and aspirations of a group of residents who live under occupation and its security control.

On the other hand, the interim program included in its titles and tasks, the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties, as an equivalent response to the Palestinian Nakba and the places of refuge and homelessness, as well as the right of Palestinian people in self-determination through the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

Thus, the Palestinian National Movement has been tasked with dealing with the Palestinian national rights from its position of integration, on the contrary of the voices that called for separating the entitlements of Nakba from the repercussions of June aggression; therefore, separating the Palestinian rights from each other, in preparation for the exchange bazaar between them. This is the equation that still prevails in its attempt to form a Palestinian entity which is not equal to an independent state on all the occupied Palestinian territories by the 1967 aggression, and to prioritize this option at the expense of the right of refugees to return to their homes and properties that is guaranteed by the international resolution 194.

Therefore, all attempts to ignore the interim national program of progress came at the expense of the embodiment of this right; and the issue of refugees was the target by elimination through this excess. Therefore, when Oslo Accords were signed, and then the project of settlement has been launched, there was the principle of separation between the rights of Palestinians which governed the rules of this settlement; So that the Palestinian issue becomes a set of scattered issues on multiple negotiating tracks that are not linked to one another in their aims.

The committees of refugees and displaced have faded away, so in the Palestinian scene there is only a bilateral negotiating arena between the Palestinian negotiator and the occupation, under exclusive American supervision. More importantly, the path of negotiation has not been able to progress one step towards the embodiment of establishing an independent Palestinian state at a time when the bulldozers of destruction and settlements were the only movers in the this scene.

Because of the disadvantages of the Oslo Accords, Tel Aviv realized that what should be implemented in this agreement, is the aspect that puts the future of the "population" in the West Bank and Jerusalem at the expense of the future of their land, by excluding the settlement and Judaization campaigns from the negotiation process; therefore, the observers noted that the occupation gave the Palestinian Authority Palestinian housing gathering with their narrow surroundings, all that were through a special Israeli equation «More people... Less land».

Thus, about a quarter of a century after the signing of Oslo Accords, the issue of expanding the PA's control over some areas remains controversial, and it is only about promises and incentives for the Palestinian negotiator, to return to the negotiating table, and to sit abstractly in front of Israeli security and expansionist considerations wall.

Of course, Tel Aviv does not give up its gains through the agreement, especially in the security and economic fields. Through the security coordination and appending the Palestinian economic activity to the Israeli economy as established by the «Paris Protocol».

It can be said that the reason of zigzag in the Palestinian national action route since aggression of 1967 to this day, is often the "approach" of separating Palestinian rights or preferring one to other, in the context of a misunderstanding that they can be embodied in sequence. The increasing attempts to write off the right of return have confirmed the uselessness of this misconception.

This approach includes the danger to all Palestinian rights, especially the right of self-determination and the establishment of an independent state, as what the occupation proposes which is consistent with Washington, does not lead to the establishment of this state with Jerusalem as its capital on the borders of June 4th, 1967. This has been confirmed by the adoption of Trump administration for the idea of discussing the issues of permanent solution separately and not linking the result of debate about one of them to another.

Fifty years after the June aggression, the unified national liberation program is still the major absentee. We do not believe that the entitlements of defeat can be tackled without the reconsideration to it and working to achieve it.

 
Notes:
Mohammad Al-Sahli is an Editor in Chief of Al-Hourriah newspaper, the official speaker of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine
Translated by: Hassan Barazi
Revised by: Ibrahim Motlaq
 

Share |
dflp-palestine[at]dflp-palestine.net
copyright © 2004 - dflp-palestine.net