Talal Abu Zarifa, a member of the political bureau of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, said on Saturday that the one-state solution is not new, as it has been proposed or demanded in “different formulations” in previous times by several Palestinian, Israeli and international parties.
This came during a dialogue symposium organized by the Hawar Center for Studies in Gaza, entitled “The Palestinian State: Alternatives and Solutions.”
He added, “Those who hold the one-state point of view relied on the arrival of the political leadership of the Palestinian Authority to the failure of the two-state option.”
Abu Zarifa stressed that it is not permissible to tamper with Palestinian rights and move from one goal to another whenever negotiations falter or the political leadership fails to achieve the national goal, noting that proposing the idea of a single state means dropping the goal of an independent state in the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem, or bypassing the Palestinian national project, which means changing from a liberation movement. My country is drawn to struggles demanding human rights.
He continued, the idea failed when the prevailing thought in Israel was moderate and open-minded. Does the idea have a share of success today in light of biblical religious thought that dominates the Israeli official establishment?
Abu Zarifa stressed that the danger of proposing a single state is bypassing all resolutions of international and Arab legitimacy, and establishing a new legitimacy and reference. We do not believe that the international, Arab and Palestinian situation is ready and able to establish it and achieve its goals, pointing out that the South African model cannot be generalized to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a result of the nature of the conflict, South Africa was essentially a country based on discrimination between blacks and whites, and the form of the conflict was racial, based on the absence of citizenship rights for blacks and not self-determination.
He continued, “The Oslo Accords provided abundant controversial material to undermine the interim program and opened the doors to the search for another definition of the national project. It moved – in the general direction – between restoring the concepts of ‘complete liberation’ and the vision of ‘one state with equal rights for its citizens.’ He explained that the problem is
in The two propositions are that the first depends, in order to fulfill its quorum, on an allied external condition, the holding of which is certainly welcomed, but its decision, timing and context will – self-evidently – be in the hands of its owners. And the second serves, in the current circumstance, the project of “Greater Israel with unequal rights,” asking: Is the two-state solution that is being talked about by the Palestinians, Americans, and Israel based on the international legitimacy resolutions affirmed by the interim program? Also, the term in circulation is not a Palestinian term, as it originally goes back to the “international quartet.”
Abu Zarifa warned, “The two-state solution” is a term that ignores the reality of the existence of a state that occupies and settles the lands of another state that has not yet been established. In addition to his abandonment of defining the borders of this state, its capital, the fate of the refugees who were displaced from their land, and his rejection of national equality and equality in citizenship, and from this angle, this term cannot faithfully express the interim program, as it is nothing more than a condescending formula for… His objectives, calling for adherence to the literal text of the interim program, and insisting on all of its implications, until the proportion of forces conducive to its implementation is formed.
He stated that the interim national program is the one that most meets the comprehensive national interest, and is the most capable of uniting the people and mobilizing their energies in various arenas. It also does not claim to provide a complete solution to the Palestinian national question, as this solution can only be achieved when the entire Palestinian people exercises their right to self-determination freely at will. its entire national territory, in addition to being a program for a balanced political settlement; The fact that it is temporary does not diminish the value of what it achieves, let alone what it establishes.
He added, “Liberating the occupied Palestinian territories with the June 1967 aggression, establishing the right of return in accordance with UN Resolution 194, ensuring the right of national equality for the masses of the Palestinian people within the 1948 borders, and the unity of our people and the unity of their right to self-determination make progress and successes in any of the three axes enhanced and supported.” for his national struggle.”
He stressed that the completion of these tasks opens the horizons for a joint struggle in which the Palestinian National Movement and the anti-Zionist Israeli democratic forces engage in a radical democratic solution that eradicates the roots of the ongoing national conflict and ensures the removal of the Israeli character of the State of Israel
Source: Maan News Agency