The First Intifada (1987) revealed that controlling the popular uprising and unrest in Palestine without extracting concrete concessions from the Israeli occupation was impossible. Decades of oppression and humiliation had led to a breaking point in Palestine. The streets remained turbulent, and Israeli counterattacks only fueled the hatred against the occupation. In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leader Yasser Arafat and his colleagues announced their acceptance of a "two-state solution" in principle. Arafat aimed to channel the people's accumulated anger into practical outcomes and solidify the PLO's position as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, sidelining Hamas, which had emerged during the Intifada.
On November 15, 1988, the PLO and its various factions declared Palestinian independence at a meeting in Algiers, and Arafat was elected "President of Palestine." The "Declaration of Independence" shared at the end of the meeting was penned by the famous Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish.
While the declaration of independence, made thousands of kilometers away in another Arab capital, had no practical reality, Arafat and his team were anxious to hold onto the ground slipping from under them as the Intifada burned in the streets of Palestine. According to their plan, Hamas would be sidelined, and once the streets calmed, the Palestinian public would turn to the PLO as the only political solution. However, recent history repeatedly proved Arafat's miscalculations on this matter.
The Complex Landscape of Palestinian Politics
Reading the news about the "Beijing Declaration," signed last week by 14 Palestinian groups (including Hamas and Fatah) in China's capital, made me wonder what exactly and how these 14 different groups are fighting for in an occupied land. The rivalries, competitions, and even hostilities among these groups form a significant part of the century-old, pain-filled history of the Palestinian issue. At times, these conflicts nearly evolved into civil war, with the Israeli occupation forcibly calming the situation.
Vital questions arise: When the Zionist occupation ends one day, what kind of political atmosphere will emerge in Palestine? Can Palestinian movements that have fallen into such disagreements under occupation come together at the same table to build their country's future? Or will "free" Palestine spiral into a series of anarchies and chaos, as seen in many parts of the Arab world? These are questions we seldom ponder, possibly because we fear the answers, but they stand before us as cold, hard truths.
China's latest move in the Palestinian issue, adding another to the long list of declarations (Cairo, Mecca, Riyadh, Doha), does not seem sufficient to resolve the deep-seated divisions within Palestine. While parties claim, "This was more comprehensive than all previous national reconciliation attempts; we are very hopeful," anyone closely and objectively observing the Palestinian front knows that the internal divisions are not easily resolved by signing a paper at a table facilitated by a foreign country. Genuine solutions from within Palestine and sincere concessions among the parties are essential.
Perhaps the Palestinian groups should be reminded of the famous story of Solomon:
Two women claiming to be a child's mother come to Solomon for judgment. Solomon, after hearing the claims, says, "Bring me a knife; I'll divide the child and give each of you a piece." One woman, horrified, pleads, "Don't do that! The child is hers!" Solomon then determines that the true mother is the one who spoke up.
In looking at Palestine, we must ask: Who is the true mother of this child?
