Recognition and the contentious debate in the Palestinian arena

By Samih Khalaf
It is important to remember that the Palestinian national struggle movement and national resistance are cumulative processes whose activities extend across several decades. If there is an achievement, it is an achievement of the Palestinian people, not of any faction, entity or particular leader. At the same time, this piece is not an exhaustive evaluation of the Palestinian experience, but it seems that Palestinian elites and their followers, and the anatomical condition of the national icon, remain fragmented and divided. I have summarized that victory will be achieved when we meet our national objectives by dismantling this racist, fascist, Nazi-like entity and restoring the historical identity of this land with roots stretching back thousands of years — roots that have remained despite the defeats inflicted here by empires, invasions and hostile campaigns. The debate in the Palestinian arena is as we have known it in every phase: each side seeks to prove that it alone is responsible for any achievement. Now we face a deep abyss: to be or not to be. The split appears to be deepening between two camps and there is no third: the first claims realism and pragmatism, designs its programs based on so-called international legitimacy, and is convinced that it cannot move even a few steps outside those legitimacies. The other camp, committed to the historical constants of the struggle, views the problem and the crisis in terms of the existence of this racist Zionist entity on the ground; this group is entrenched in resisting that project with the minimal aim of preventing it from obtaining the stability and security promised to its settlers. By any reckoning, no one would expect the strength of the second camp to be able to decide a military, political or diplomatic battle in a fixed timeframe. But, as I said, it is an accumulative process, and however much the occupation uses tools of brutality and overwhelming force, it will not settle — it cannot settle — the convictions of this camp unless it succeeds in penetrating it and it makes the concessions that the first camp (the realist camp) made. Here I note that the important recognitions that have occurred recently — recognition of the Palestinian state — even if they came at the expense of denying the other camp in the Palestinian arena, and signify a further decline of the realist camp even in the rhetoric of the president of the Palestinian Authority. Undoubtedly, the recent recognitions by Western countries, most notably Britain and France — the former being responsible for the Balfour Declaration and the mandatory rule over Palestine and morally and materially implicated in the declaration of the State of Israel, and the latter, France, which helped establish the Dimona nuclear reactor — are significant.

These recognitions primarily stem from a conflict the Biden administration imposed on Europe across the Ukrainian and Middle Eastern dimensions.

Secondly, no candle burns without fuel, and that fuel consists of the tens of thousands of martyrs, the sacrifices and the steadfastness in Gaza over two consecutive years in a war that many states could not endure. That is the greatness of the Palestinian people’s resistance, their endurance and patience, which stunned everyone.

The third dimension of this recognition is the exposure of the Nazi nature of this entity’s leadership and its transgression of all human and moral values in its dealings with Gaza and its people, which has driven peoples around the world to pressure their governments and encourage them to repudiate this diabolic entity in the Middle East. But I reiterate and remind readers of the international resolutions issued in favor of the Palestinian people at the United Nations, chief among them the international recognition at the General Assembly on 22/9/2025.

First: resolutions adopted by the General Assembly, some of which have not yet been implemented due to the use of the American and British veto in certain decisions. To this day the United States has used its veto in the Security Council against four resolutions to halt the massacre in Gaza:

1. Resolution 181 of 1947, the partition resolution and the internationalization of Jerusalem proposing a Palestinian state and a Jewish state; the Security Council only recognized the Jewish state.

2. Resolution 194 of 1948, which affirms the right of return and led to the creation of UNRWA to provide humanitarian services to Palestinian refugees until their return.

3. Resolution 273 of 1949, accepting Israel as a member of the United Nations on the condition that it comply with Resolutions 181 and 194, which would require the Security Council to expel the so-called State of Israel for failing to implement those resolutions.

4. Resolution 67/19, recognizing Palestine as a non-member observer state at the United Nations. Second: notable Security Council resolutions include:

1. Resolution 242 of 1967, which calls for Israel’s withdrawal from territories it occupied in Sinai, the Golan, Gaza and the West Bank.

2. Resolution 338 of 1973, resulting from the ceasefire in the October War and reaffirming commitment to Resolution 242.

3. Resolution 478 of 1980, in which the Security Council rejected the notion of Jerusalem as the unified capital of Israel, even though the United States later disregarded that decision by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s unified capital and moving its embassy there.

4. Resolution 1397, the two-state solution resolution of 2002.

5. Resolution 1515 of 2003, endorsing the road map for a two-state solution.

6. Resolution 2334 of 2016, which affirmed that settlement activity is illegal and constitutes a violation of international law. The United States, under its current master in the White House, Trump, and before him both Democratic and Republican presidents, have thwarted all Security Council resolutions in favor of the Palestinian people. Meanwhile, President Trump stands in the General Assembly attacking the UN for failing to play its role in resolving crises, and the U.S. administration continues to obstruct any solutions to secure a ceasefire inside the Gaza Strip, effectively adopting the desires of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. At the same time, this posture feeds the U.S. president’s narcissism that he alone can confront global changes led by Europe and the Arab group in favor of the Palestinian people.

I conclude this article by emphasizing its opening and title: any achievement should not be a matter of dispute or tug-of-war here or there. In the end, the movement of the Palestinian national struggle — through its experience from its inception to the present and into the future — is what matters, regardless of the differing ideologies of each stage.