Last week, many cities around the world marked the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Palestinian legend Ghassan Kanafani. Palestinian groups in Vancouver, Canada organized multiple actions for the occasion, from street murals to a full day of workshops and films, culminating in an evening of speeches and internationalist cultural presentations.
The legacy and revolutionary spirit of Kanafani stirred many memories for those of us who were in Beirut during the early 1970s. It was a time of political and cultural innovation and strength, and the idea of political compromise on the basic principles of Palestinian nationhood was unthinkable.
How did we go from the strength of the Beirut refugee camps to the cowardly posturing of the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority? Those questions are being grappled with by the Palestinian movement today, as more and more of the younger generation of activists are unwilling to accept the discredited notion of “incremental liberation.” Such questions must be resolved by Palestinians themselves as they take stock of the mistakes of the past, but one thing is clear: the two-state solution, or “the mini-state” as it was first known, is dead.
The message of Ghassan Kanafani, and many others in the Palestinian movement at that time, was a message of clarity. It challenged both Zionist settler-colonialism and imperialism, as well as the Arab regimes complicit in enabling them. If we are sincere in honoring Kanafani’s legacy, then we must examine how that message should be translated into our work today.
The street mural that went up in Vancouver for Kanafani also carried the now popular message: “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” The mural managed to stay up for 48 hours on a busy Vancouver street–an achievement in and of itself–while Twitter posts highlighting the artwork were shared widely.
The mural slogan exemplifies the idea of total liberation from US-Israel hegemony and promotes the concept of one democratic secular state in Palestine, which was also a cornerstone of the Palestinian resistance movement in its early days.
The Israeli policy of assassination of Palestinian leaders and thinkers aimed at weakening the revolutionary trajectory in the Palestinian struggle.
However, in 1974, following the October 1973 war, the PLO Ten Point Program first codified the idea of liberation “in steps,” or “incremental liberation.” The document passed by the 12th session of the Palestine National Council (PNC) called for the establishment of an “independent…national authority for the people over every (any) part of Palestinian territory that is liberated,” but portrayed this as an interim “step towards liberation” that would not compromise any Palestinian national rights. Nevertheless, the door was opened, the push for endless “diplomatic initiatives” began, and came full circle with the Oslo Accords.
The Israeli policy of assassination (or imprisonment) of top Palestinian leaders and thinkers aimed at weakening the revolutionary trajectory in the Palestinian struggle. Thus, when Oslo was finally signed, there were fewer voices left to warn of the obvious dangers of this “conversation between the sword and the neck”.
Whether the Oslo Accords could have ever succeeded under any circumstance is a moot point now, as the result has undeniably been greater dispossession for the Palestinians, more land theft, and more death. With no genuine statehood in sight after almost 30 years, any further pandering to the two-state solution is a disservice to the Palestinian cause and an invitation to further dismemberment.
Multiple human rights groups have acknowledged the reality that there is only currently one state between the river and the sea, and that state is an apartheid, settler-colonialist, and militaristic nightmare for the indigenous Palestinians. The talk of “two states” is now mostly the realm of opportunistic politicians, especially from Western governments, who love to tweet photo-ops of themselves with displaced or suffering Palestinians in the occupied West Bank to show their concern, while trumpeting their support for the two-state solution.
If indeed we are to honor the message Kanafani unflinchingly put forward, then we must also show clarity and boldness in our solidarity work. The Palestinians have been overly patient in exhausting all promises of this “phantom” Palestinian state and allowing the fog of Oslo to dominate the discourse.
Very few would dispute that Oslo is dead. Many would argue it was a ruse from the beginning–to co-opt the Palestinian movement. A return to the basic principles of Palestinian liberation are being embraced by a new generation of activists. All of this is to say that, yes, “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is not just a viable strategy, but the only possible strategy going forward. Palestine must be free: from apartheid, from the brutality and humiliation of an unaccountable settler-colonial regime, and from the cruel designs of U.S. imperialism in the region. This is neither anti-Jewish, nor anti-peace–it is pro-justice for a people that have already borne the brunt of Israeli impunity for far too long.
1 of 2
“How is this even remotely viable? How are you going to get Israel to surrender its existence? Every time I see someone write about this they are describing some kind of utopian outcome while conveniently avoiding discussing how to get from here to there.”
Do you ever read your comments for contradictory content before you post them? For example, you raise the idea of “remote viability” as evidence that the Palestinian revolution is unwinnable yet in the very same comment you also mention the “hypothetically realistic” scenario of Israel’s defeat back when it faced a united Arab military bloc, its economy was weak and it was “poor and relatively isolated.”
Would you have suggested to the beleaguered Zionists that the idea of continuing to fight was “sheer madness”? Please elaborate.
Moreover, all true Zionists endlessly bruit the straw man of Jewish/Israeli defenselessness as both the goal of Palestinian militancy and the inevitable outcome of any move towards abolishing Israel’s Apartheid regime. Might there be other possible outcomes? Might the Irish Good Friday Agreement be a model?
2 of 2
But conflict resolution is not your intent: you wish to insinuate that the Palestinians are “mad” to continue to struggle for their independence because Israel is (currently) so strong. Right? You want to suggest that because the Palestinians have not laid out for you a clear, detailed plan of liberation/action that serves (for you) as evidence of their acceptance of “permanent failure”. Right?
In response, allow me to offer you some dots on the From Here To There map: BDS; IAW; JVP; SJP; Btselem, Mondoweiss; the Harvard Crimson; Ben and Jerry’s, et. al. Have these global expressions of solidarity with the Palestinians succeeded in overthrowing Zionism’s Apartheid regime? No. But if these were not important indicators of a growing, glowing vibrancy of intersectionality and solidarity then why would organized Zionism fixate on them as it has and spend untold millions of dollars trying to subvert them? There are many other ways to bring about the collapse of a brutal, unjust, racist system short of forcing a formal surrender. The American revolutionary long-game slogan was: Give me liberty or give me death. The Bolshevik long-game slogan was: Drive Red Wedges. The Palestinian long-game slogan is: From the River to the Sea.
Is it antisemitic according to IHRA to hold these views?
See 78 JVP posters here
“How did we go from the strength of the Beirut refugee camps to the cowardly posturing of the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority?….any further pandering to the two-state solution is a disservice to the Palestinian cause and an invitation to further dismemberment.
Independence via rocks and rockets didn’t work, reinforced Israeli victimhood,and are unlikely to end apartheid or advance a secular state. Placards will be more powerful than force to bring cultural and individual rights.
Hopefully this article will appear in a Palestinian or Israeli newspaper as its a timely discussion.
I don’t like arguing with the elderly, but it does seem like some ideas from the 1970s are perhaps best left in the 1970s. Ideas that were unachievable for the Palestinians in the 1970s when they had Soviet and Arab support are pretty likely to be even less achievable today given the changed circumstances.
Effectively all these ideas all come from the belief that Israel will at some point surrender and accept being subsumed in a state where the Jews are a defenseless minority with their necks exposed to the hanging sword of their enemies’ retribution. I understand how in the 1970s perhaps this was a hypothetically realistic scenario when Israel was facing a united Arab world backed by a powerful socialist bloc of nations. The Israeli economy was struggling under the defense burden. It was poor and relatively isolated. It was unclear if the West would be able to stand against the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc of nations. The Arabs were wielding the oil weapon to force the Europeans into taking positions that were less pro-Israeli.
But now? The idea is just sheer madness.
“All of this is to say that, yes, “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is not just a viable strategy, but the only possible strategy going forward.”
How is this even remotely viable? How are you going to get Israel to surrender its existence? Every time I see someone write about this they are describing some kind of utopian outcome while conveniently avoiding discussing how to get from here to there. If this is your only possible strategy then you are accepting permanent failure.
Hoping this is not the intent of the author, because this article reads as a direct call for ethnic cleansing and genocide of the native Jewish population…