And suddenly, the overwhelming majority of countries in the so-called Collective West decided to recognise the State of Palestine.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

And suddenly, the overwhelming majority of countries in the so-called Collective West decided to recognise the State of Palestine. Among them were some of the most loyal allies of the Zionist regime and accomplices to its atrocities, such as France, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and even, despite its negligible specific weight, the government of the Portuguese Republic. We know that consistency is not the strong point of the Montenegro clique: recognition was declared just a few weeks after the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Paulo Rangel, went to bless the crimes of the Israeli regime, precisely at one of the most intense stages of human and physical devastation in the Gaza Strip.

Any reader will naturally wonder what has now led so many important countries, the guardians of “our civilisation”, to adopt a stance that they could, and should, have taken years ago. Was it the blatant and dramatic exposure of the decades-old genocide of the Palestinian people, which is ravaging the Gaza Strip and which the hypocrisy of fine words and the most beautiful intentions can no longer hide? Perhaps a little, although we should not attach too much importance to this response because shame is not something that abounds in Western governments.

Another reason, this one with a much more important political and strategic significance, is the certainty of all those making the declarations that their decision, apart from being couched in plenty of half-truths, has no practical effect on the real recognition of Palestinian rights and on the murderous conduct of the State of Israel. On the same days that the declarations of recognition were made, the Zionist Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, assured with complete conviction that there would never be a Palestinian state. This was a challenge to the attitudes of Western countries, which they received with the most devout silence.

And now?

The most relevant situation, and also the one that raises the most doubts about the genuineness of Western governments’ intentions regarding the restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people, is based on a simple question: What now?

Yes, what could these declarations of recognition of the State of Palestine change in the current situation, controlled by the fascist impulses of the Israeli government and the US administration, this time under Trump’s baton – as it could be, with the same effects, under Biden’s orders?

At first glance, they will change nothing. Colonial and expansionist arbitrariness continues unabated in East Jerusalem and from north to south in the West Bank, while the human and physical levelling of Gaza continues unhindered, except for the guerrilla pockets of Hamas.

Western governments have recognised an abstract state with no effective powers over what should be its territory, disappearing every day in the face of the genocidal advances of hordes of settlers imported from all over the planet. Are Western governments doing anything concrete to force Israel to stop colonisation? Are they stopping sending weapons to Israel? Are they considering imposing sanctions capable of suffocating a state run by a criminal clique that is incapable of living on its own?

So far, there is no indication that any of the Western powers are willing to take these steps, which are essential if any qualitative changes in the balance of power throughout Palestine are to lead to negotiations capable of defining the paths for establishing and applying international law in the region. This would imply that, at least in this case, Western leaders would have to put aside their bureaucratic adherence to the ‘rules-based international order’ defined in Washington. The truth is that no government seems willing to take this risk, which, in practice and under these conditions, reveals that recognising or not recognising the State of Palestine will amount to the same thing, that is, more of the same.

Recognise, yes, but…

Western governments have been careful (which opens the door to backtracking) not to recognise the State of Palestine unconditionally, thus continuing to put the strict application of the principles established by international law on hold. Endowed with authority and power granted by five centuries of colonial violence, which allowed them to invent an entity such as the State of Israel, Western governments have attached a series of conditions to the decision. Taken literally, these translate into recognition without recognition because they effectively limit the Palestinian people’s decision-making powers on matters that concern them and on which only they have the right to deliberate.

In a manoeuvre that transfigures much of what is positive about recognition, Western governments are attempting to breathe new life into Mahmoud Abbas’s moribund Palestinian Authority, confined to Ramallah, by giving it powers that it will be unable to exercise. They also demand its absolute surrender to Israel – a demand that is unnecessary in the situation that has been dragging on throughout this century – and they attribute sole responsibility for terrorism in Palestine to Hamas, while ignoring Israeli terror – disguised as ‘security’ and ‘right to exist’. As always, this double standard vitiates the very declarations of recognition from the outset.

The condition that demonstrates how hypocritical and, for now, useless the declarations of recognition are, however, relates to the demand for the disarmament not only of Hamas but of all structures of the Palestinian Resistance. Such demands leave the entire Palestinian people even more helpless and at the mercy of the criminal free will of the Zionist regime, which can thus pursue its genocidal goal, free from any hindrance, while remaining exempt from accountability before international bodies. In the practical consequences of the measures imposed by Western governments in exchange for the recognition of the State of Palestine, the Zionist state would find the best of all worlds and the full realisation of all its objectives.

The shadow of collaborationism

The most recent developments in the recognition process help to dispel some uncertainties about the interests that lie behind the decision, which are not favourable to the Palestinian people.

It was clear from the outset that the recognition of Palestinian independence by Western governments was not, it bears repeating, unconditional. Most of the speeches on the subject clearly overvalued the Palestinian Authority, which is inactive in practice and, more seriously, entirely conditioned by Israel’s demands. The “shared” management of much of the West Bank between the Ramallah government and the Zionist occupation forces means, in fact, that the former has been placed at the service of the latter’s interests. This is often confirmed by the actions of the Palestinian police forces in repressive actions against the Palestinian population itself.

This situation suits Western governments because it means that the ‘autonomous’ authorities are willing to collaborate in ways that run counter to the legitimate interests of the Palestinian people, which have never been recognised by Western states.

At the same time, the West attributes sole representation of the Palestinians to the decrepit Palestinian Authority and its leader Mahmoud Abbas, who is in fact perpetuated in power despite being completely hamstrung by Israel and the United States. It should be remembered, as it is a fact, that his accession to the presidency was achieved through a soft coup organised in 1994 by the United States, Israel and Western powers, as a result of which the historic leader of the Resistance, Yasser Arafat, was removed from the main positions of power (to which he had been elected) and assassinated a few months later.

It should also be remembered that Mahmoud Abbas, very recently described as ‘pragmatic’ by a pro-Israeli publication such as the weekly newspaper Expresso, was received at the White House, from where Arafat had been banned, shortly after taking office as president of the so-called ‘Autonomy’ in 1994.

These circumstances help to better understand the Western constraints that accompanied the recognition of independence. And they lead to the elementary conclusion that there will be no representative entity that reflects the will of the Palestinian people without the holding of free, open and democratic general elections under the control of international bodies supervised by the UN. This process cannot involve the intervention of Israel and the United States of America, which is by definition biased and self-serving.

Another demand common to Western governments is that the Resistance (wrongly and maliciously equated with Hamas) should ‘renounce’ terrorism, that is, armed struggle, while, it should be repeated, sparing Israeli terrorism. This ‘renunciation’ must be accompanied by the disarmament of the Resistance, which means the total surrender of the Palestinian people to the discretionary and genocidal power of Israel. From this perspective, the recognition of Palestine becomes a poisoned gift.

Abbas’ recent speech to the UN General Assembly, delivered via the internet because, this time, the Trump administration illegally refused to grant the Palestinian president a visa to travel to New York, confirmed the existence of dangerous collaboration with Israeli and Western colonial interests.

Mahmoud Abbas, as Palestinian president, promised that ‘Hamas will never be the government’. But how can the most prominent Palestinian leader, whose party was defeated in the last general elections held in the occupied territories, promise that the most voted political force (according to the last poll, held more than 15 years ago) will not be able to govern the state? By manipulating the election results? By adopting a single-party regime or a personal dictatorship? By preventing a party with significant popular support, Hamas or any other, from being a legitimate and necessary part of a majority government? Let us remember that Abbas and his Western and Arab allies prevented Hamas from governing after it won an absolute majority in free elections; and that, despite multiple negotiations and supposed draft agreements, they always sabotaged the creation of ‘national unity governments’ that would have brought Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem under the same ‘autonomous government’. ‘One of our strategic objectives is to maintain the separation between Gaza and the West Bank,’ Netanyahu confessed to his Likud party’s parliamentary group.

None of these paths implied in the content of the recognition statements correspond to the ‘democratic values’ proclaimed by the Western world, which seems willing to impose, through its latest decision, an authoritarian and undemocratic ‘solution’ centred on Abbas.

In his speech, the Palestinian president stated that he does not want Palestine to be ‘an armed state’. What does this idea mean, which is incompatible with the existence of a full state as established in international law? Would the defence and security of Palestine be handed over to Israel? Would the Palestinian people no longer have anyone to defend them, whether it be the armed resistance or the state apparatus?

In his time, shortly before being assassinated by Zionism in 1995, Israeli Prime Minister Isaac Rabin admitted that the maximum status he would grant to a Palestinian entity at the end of the ‘peace process’ would be ‘less than a state’. Have Mahmoud Abbas and the Western leaders who manipulate him revived this idea? Will Palestine ‘less than a state’ be the future state of Palestine as understood?  There will be no better way, then, already considered as the ‘final solution’ to the problem, for the continuation of genocide and the creation of Greater Israel – throughout Palestine, as a first step.

The fundamental question, however, remains: what will come after the recognition of independence, given that Israel occupies almost the entire territory where this state would be created? What will Western countries do to give substance to their decision? It should be remembered that international law requires the creation of an ‘independent and viable’ Palestinian state. In prosaic terms, a state like any other. However, this is not what is being planned, with the collaboration of the incompetent Palestinian Authority. Israel’s dizzying policy of creating settlements is gradually eating away at the territory that is essential for the creation of a viable state. Taking a clear-headed view, the Portuguese head of state admitted that one day there will be no territory left to establish a state. This is a reality that I began denouncing many years ago, because it is obvious and Israel makes no secret of it. Despite recognising these circumstances, the Western world is doing nothing concrete to stop the colonisation and make the state it claims to recognise viable.

Once again, the West’s main objective has been to create propaganda and delaying tactics and, with them, to try to neutralise the increasingly strong, active and genuine solidarity of Western peoples with the Palestinian people. This solidarity cannot be allowed to wane; it must be strengthened, because if we rely on the promises and decisions of our governments, the Palestinian people will continue to be the biggest victims. And we cannot allow that to happen.