Confronting the increasing dangers on the Palestinian issue requires the implementation of the national consensus decisions.
Trump Administration condoled the «two-state solution», and it considered that it was not an imposed target for the settlement process. It earlier announced that the settlements do not constitute an impediment before the «peace»; and it not show any objection to the depredation law of the Palestinian lands and properties, which was approved by the Israeli Knesset recently.
All of this was before Netanyahu's visit to Washington that took place at the mid of this month, which indicates that the US-Israeli relations are witnessing a dangerous shift with the coming of the Republican Administration, without that means that the previous administration was an honest sponsor to the settlement process, which reached to the impasse.
If the new administration's position towards the settlements supposes the end of the betting on the US role, so, its last position towards the «two-state solution» puts the Palestinian negotiator before the need to abort bet, which the experience has confirmed that it’s an illusion no more ...
Anyway , the so-called «two-state solution» was not an embodiment for the Palestinian national aspirations at this stage; because the occupation state is still existed, and has extended its settlement net around the possibility of establishing an independent Palestinian state, and it is the aim which should be the compass of settlement process, as a State free of settlements and settlers and on the borders of June 1967, and its capital Jerusalem, as was confirmed by the UN resolution, which was adopted at the General Assembly of the United Nations in the twenty-ninth of November 2012.
In spite that, the death of the «two-state solution» indicates that Washington determined its policies tittles towards any compromise between the Palestinian and Israeli sides, and that the most prominent of these titles is to leave the solution of the core issues of the conflict that based on the «agreement» of the two parties without the interference of this administration. This means that the strongest party on the ground (occupation) is who, will decide the nature of this solution, and thus, it determines the fate of the Palestinian occupied territories, in accordance with its security and expansion interests.
As Trump has left for his son in law, Kouchner the monitor of this file, and he is one of the financiers of the settlement, and with the presence of Washington's ambassador to Tel Aviv, so, any American sponsorship for the settlement, will serve as an additional bulldozer that will be involved in the conversion and confiscation and settlement expansion campaign, and thus, the US role moves from the biased «sponsor» for the occupation, to the direct partner in achieving what the Netanyahu government and its predecessors have not achieved yet.
All this opens the talk about the practical steps that should be carried out by the PLO and the P A. Not only as a response to US-Israeli policies, but also as a commitment to the Palestinian national program for liberation, and the decisions of the national consensus, including the decisions of the «Central Council» in its last session of the year before last; and the decisions of the comprehensive Palestinian dialogue concerning the correction of the Palestinian situation and the rebuilding of the Palestinian political system on democratic foundations.
But before that, we should resolve the dilemma of continuing the bet on the United States, and on the settlement on with its terms that were raised since it start, in addition to the «determinants», which were recently proposed by Netanyahu, who stressed that the condition of the resumption of the negotiation is to recognize the Jewishness of the state of Israel and to accept that Israel's borders extend from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean sea. And we do not know what's left to be decided by negotiations.
What pushes for this conversation, are the statements which were made by members of the Executive Committee of the PLO as replies to the US and Israel emerging policies.
Among that the speech of Ahmed Qurei in responding to the fierce settlement attack in Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank and he considered that these policies will lead to «a real destruction to the peace process», as if there is a path for this process which is actually not existed and which has been blown up long ago by the hands of Israeli actions on the ground, and by the set of legislations that were issued by the Knesset regarding to the settlement and others.
In short, there is no political process that is dying and that should be rescued, and all what is proposed, are just titles for unfair settlement to the Palestinian people and its national rights.
The Palestinian Central Council stressed the need to abort it, and to link any next settlement with the international legitimacy resolutions and in the forefront is resolution 194, which guarantees the right of return for the Palestinians refugees to their homes and properties that they were expelled from.
Therefore, we say that the Palestinian practical steps that face with the growing dangers on the Palestinian cause, are supposed to be established on a political will by the implementation of the national consensus resolutions that clearly call for an open battle with the occupation and before that providing the fight constituents for this battle on the ground, and in policy, and by ending the division and to cancel the factional policies that led to its appearance.
In the context of all this, it is supposed to end the approach that depends on the policy of the «half step» as manifested in dealing with the membership to the United Nations institutions and particularly that related to the trial of the occupation, also as demonstrated in dealing with the Central Council resolutions at its last session; and the successive national dialogues resolutions.
Behind this approach, there is a pattern of thinking which depends on waving with what is achieved by the national consensus, to put it in the barter basket with the international concerned sides, especially Washington, to bring other negotiating offers. But what is happening is that these sides read well that the offer owners are not thinking seriously about following different new policies, and that they are committed to one choice which is negotiating and then negotiating.
In order to continue the bet on the ability of these policies to keep on, their owners lean on the promises that are presented, including those which were raised by Obama's Cairo speech about settlement freezing and establishing the Palestinian state and that has led in practice only to put the Palestinian negotiator and his political reference in the circle of rotating in the place, while the Israeli expansionist policies make their way to the ground. That also including the French ideas that entered in order to fill the vacuum after Washington abstention from pursuing settlement and its preoccupation with the presidential elections and before that the serious developments, which are invading the region, also this did not lead to something tangible, and what was released from the recent «Paris conference» was gaunt and improper for the Palestinians.
As the indicators confirm that we are facing an unprecedented attack that threatens the Palestinian cause as a whole, the Palestinian case is obliged to more than ever to exceed its weaknesses and begin to straighten its positions on the road of facing the attack.