State of Palestine’s international intifada not a substitute for addressing visa refusals

By Hassan Asfour

Every Palestinian has the right to feel some “political compensation” for what has befallen his national cause and the future of the entity, after the United Nations General Assembly rose up and 142 countries raised their hands in opposition to the aggression carried out by the United States and the usurping entity, making 12 September 2025 a politically significant day in the context of the contemporary existential struggle.

Undoubtedly, it is another black day added to the record of the Jewish fascist state — regardless of the ability of those who lack the means to implement it — but it is part of a struggle that took on a new form after the events of 7 October 2023. Netanyahu’s government and the United States are working to erase the national entity through Judaization and displacement, and through a replacement process that brings in settler-invaders. Indeed, the usurper prime minister’s remarks moments before the historic vote — that he would work to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and shift the entity’s borders from Jerusalem to the Jordan Valley — are a message about the nature of this continuing campaign, which amounts to a war of annihilation and ethnic cleansing.

The day also coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the “Declaration of Principles” — Oslo — at the White House on 13 September 1993, restoring the strategic value of the agreement that laid the first stone of the contemporary Palestinian national entity, and from which the bid for UN observer state status in November 2012 followed. The recent crowning achievement has revived the international engine of the national cause, especially as an international outcry across much of the world (with the notable exception of the Arab region) has imposed a form of isolation and pursuit on the usurping state, its individuals and symbols.

The large voting victory at the United Nations, valuable and important as it is, should not be a substitute or “compensation” for the major political battle over confronting the Trump administration’s ban on issuing a visa to President Mahmoud Abbas and the expanded Palestinian delegation to address the General Assembly. The vote represents added strength toward efforts to break the Trumpian veto.

We must not fall into the trap of “compensatory thinking” that abandons rights and necessities; rather, there should be insistence on “replacement measures” as part of the comprehensive response to the UN decision. This is underscored by the fact that some European countries have formally requested relocating the General Assembly session to Geneva to hear President Abbas speak in his capacity as head of the state that an overwhelming majority voted for, versus a numerically unmatched minority.

Clinging to the national right to address the General Assembly has gained political importance after the usurping state’s government announced an expanded annexation plan hours before the UN vote, accompanied by its prime minister Netanyahu’s boast that he would prevent the existence of a Palestinian state and that there would be none.

The issue now concerns the decision of President Abbas and the official institutions: do they want to give the international uprising around the State of Palestine added political value, or will they flee toward a nebulous path that practically serves the usurping state’s plan to erase the State of Palestine and blunt the sharp edge of the UN decision that now hangs over an entity outside the legal framework?

Any retreat from confronting the U.S. visa ban on President Abbas and the expanded delegation would serve the siege plan against the national entity, politically erode the value of the recent UN decision of 12 September, and reduce it to mere news instead of making it a driving force for mobilized action that would complete the major rebuke in this contemporary existential struggle.

Note: “A wonderful dinner” — that’s how a Qatari diplomat summed up his prime minister’s meeting with Trump. The expression reminds us of the “Last Supper” of Jesus, son of Mary — only the difference is that at the later supper people knew who betrayed Jesus; at the first one we did not know who betrayed whom. If it was betrayal from the outset, not just tying up the story… oh, the days.

Special note: Once the Eurovision Song Contest was a big opportunity for the usurping state to show off and appear like a brightly shining country — and the Arabs were oblivious. These days the curse of Gaza seems to pursue them wherever they are, prompting withdrawals. The curse keeps moving; they thought it would come later, if at all.