The Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip since the 7th of October has engendered a series of inquiries concerning the Palestinian vision for addressing this conflict, particularly against the narratives increasingly prevalent in the discourses of Israeli and American politicians, as well as regional and international actors.
The Vision Center for Political Development in Istanbul, through interviewing a cadre of political and academic experts, endeavored to answer this question: How should the Palestinians work in the context of the Gaza conflict?
The experts’ points of view can be summarized as follow:
- It is imperative to amplify Palestinian efforts to cease the offensive on Gaza as a matter of urgency.
- The political entity that should fully represent the Palestinians is the Palestine Liberation OrganizationPLO, not the Palestinian Authority. Thus, the PLO must get rid of the exclusivity and monopolity of any single political party or faction, and to represent a collective framework for all Palestinians includingHamas and Islamic Jihad.
- There is a rejection to transitional political programs.
- There is an exigency for establishing a cohesive national attitude within the frame of the PLO as a representative entity,
- The cruciality for forestalling any attempts to usurp the representation of Palestinians and regress them to a stage of international trusteeship.
- The current form of Palestinian Authority is handcuffed by its political entanglements, rendering it peripheral within the conflict’s developments and likely to remain so in subsequent phases.
- There must be a practical and realistic initiation in which a new Palestinian era is introduced through comprehensive elections, that produce a renewed political leadership post-conflict.
- There should be a fixed insistence on attributing direct accountability for the humanitarian and relief situation in Gaza to international institutions and bodies, which are presumed to undertake this role.
- There is a necessity to give up betting on the American and European attitude that still prioritizes the two-state solution, despite being devoid of its substance.