Palestinians are often demonised as some death cult, who wanted to erase Jews from the land of historical Palestine. This couldn't be further from the truth.
The Text Assumes the 1968–1970 Binational Horizon Remains Politically Plausible
The 1970 Fatah program — and the way the text presents it — is grounded in the assumption that a democratic, binational unitary state is a viable conciliatory solution for both Palestinians and Israeli Jews.
This assumption was historically reasonable in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a period when:
a) Israeli settlements were few and not yet irreversible;
b) structural Jewish supremacism had not yet reached its current openly genocidal phase;
c) apartheid was not yet formally articulated by Israel itself;
d) parts of the Zionist left still invoked the language of coexistence and binationalism.
The text reproduces this earlier structure as if it still possessed political density in 2024–2025.
Contemporary Palestinian thinkers argue quite explicitly that this is no longer analytically defensible nor politically beneficial.
Relevant Contemporary Authors
Joseph Massad, The Persistence of the Palestinian Question (2006); Crucifying Palestine (2023):
coexistence with a genocidal regime is structurally impossible and conceptually legitimizing of colonial power.
Jamil Hilal, Where Now for the Palestinian National Movement? (2019):
a democratic single state only becomes thinkable after the end of the colonial structure.
Noura Erakat, Justice for Some (2019) and post-2023 essays:
the one-state framework is often used by Western actors as an ideological displacement that avoids confronting power relations.
Ilan Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006), Ten Myths About Israel (2017):
structural elimination precedes any discussion of constitutional forms.
Salman Abu Sitta, The Atlas of Palestine:
coexistence cannot override the right of return nor the dismantling of settler-colonial architecture.
The text does not reflect any of these shifts. It remains embedded in the intellectual world of 1968–1973, which contemporary scholars now treat as historically important but analytically outdated.
2. The Text Treats Jewish-Israeli Willingness to Coexist as an Open Variable — Which is Inconsistent with Current Social Realities
A central premise of the text is that there exists a sufficiently large segment of Israeli society open to egalitarian political coexistence.
However, empirical data — including the very survey referenced in the original text, showing 82% supporting ongoing atrocities and 53% supporting the physical expulsion of Palestinians — invalidates this assumption.
Contemporary Palestinian thought is clear:
> The problem is not a lack of dialogue; it is the overwhelming social entrenchment of Jewish supremacism within Israel.
Key authors:
Azmi Bishara, The Arab Question (2008):
Israeli political culture is structurally incapable of producing an egalitarian civic identity.
Rashid Khalidi, The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine (2020):
Israeli public opinion is fundamentally shaped by settler-colonial incentives.
The text treats Israeli supremacism as contingent rather than structural — a position contemporary Palestinian scholarship considers analytically untenable.
3. The Text Fails to Recognize the Paradigmatic Shift from “National Liberation + Right of Return” to “Full Decolonization”.
Palestinian intellectual history has moved through several phases:
1. Territorial national liberation (1930s–1967)
2. Revolutionary binationalism and the “democratic state” vision (1968–1982)
3. Human rights and statehood diplomacy (1990s–2010s)
4. Decolonization paradigm (2010s–2024) — the current stage
The text is framed entirely within stage 2, ignoring the conceptual transformations in stages 3 and
4.
In today’s intellectual landscape, Palestinian scholars broadly converge on the following principles:
The issue is not a conflict between equivalent national movements; it is a settler-colonial elimination project.
Constitutional or binational arrangements become plausible only after the dismantling of structures of domination.
As long as genocide, mass displacement, and demographic engineering continue, coexistence frameworks are fantasies.
Representative scholars include:
Yousef Munayyer (2024 essays)
Lana Tatour
Saree Makdisi, Tolerance Is a Wasteland (2022)
Hamid Dabashi, Dreams of a Nation (2006), new essays
Khaled Hroub (Islamic political thought)
The text’s analytical horizon predates these developments.
4. The article Frames Coexistence as a Moral Objective but Fails to Acknowledge the Power Asymmetry
It adopts a universalist moral frame (“shared rights,” “common citizenship,” “conciliation”), treating cohabitation and expulsion as moral polarities.
Contemporary Palestinian theorists argue that:
> Colonized peoples have no moral obligation to formulate coexistence frameworks for their colonizers.
The article unintentionally creates a false moral symmetry between Israeli mass displacement, torture, siege, elimination policies
versus
palestinian hypothetical ability to expel Israelis (which does not exist in material reality).
This is a conceptual error highlighted by:
Edward Said, The End of the Peace Process (2000)
Gary Fields, Enclosure (2017)
Mahmoud Mamdani, Neither Settler nor Native (2020)
The analysis inverts the asymmetry by presenting both sides as if they possessed comparable agency.
5. Why Citing the 1970 Fatah Program Today is Harmful to the Palestinian Struggle
Contemporary Palestinian scholarship identifies three core dangers:
(a) It creates the illusion of a “middle ground.”
Such a middle ground does not exist under conditions of ongoing elimination.
(b) It shifts the terrain from decolonization → reconciliation.
Reconciliation without structural dismantlement is a colonial pacification mechanism.
(c) It reinforces the colonial demand that the oppressed demonstrate moral superiority.
Meanwhile, the colonizer retains full impunity.
By ignoring these critiques, the text reproduces what many Palestinian intellectuals consider:
> a well-intentioned but politically disarming discourse that inadvertently legitimizes ongoing colonial violence.
CONCLUSION
The text reflects an important historical phase of Palestinian thought (1968–1973).
However, presenting it as a viable political framework today is viewed by contemporary Palestinian scholars as:
analytically anachronistic,
morally naïve,
politically counterproductive,
structurally aligned with colonial neutralization strategies.
The most important absence in the text is the foundational insight of current Palestinian political theory:
> No democratic constitutional project is conceivable while one side maintains a genocidal, eliminationist colonial structure — and this side possesses all the coercive power.
Therefore, contemporary Palestinian thought would conclude that the text:
fails to confront the structural nature of Zionist political ideology,
underestimates Israeli social adherence to supremacism,
assumes a colonizing subject that no longer exists (if it ever did),
and shifts the debate from decolonization to constitutional utopianism.
A very good revelant say but we to mention that it's due precisely to western billonaires and bribed politicians who create deliberately disasters in ex-colonies to steal goods and ressouces with often an accomplicite dictatorship government on site, like in Africa and Asia, South America. We never link - as we should - the poverty of people to the crooked government that ‘ex'colonizer country like UK, France put in place to keep having bribed wealth coming in their own pocket.
But what is more abhorrent is that those western billonaires corrupters use our own publics goods, ressouces and services to do so. So western countries get in debt and the massive immigration just for filling indecently and hugely amount of money in the pocket of billonaires, trillonaires.
Billonaires, trillonaires are the cancer of any real and serious democracy as they deprived all the people for the cast of the 1%, - the monsters in fact
When we will understand that, our all dept will desappear as it an empty trap to mislead people and ensalve them all around the world for the same.
The Fall of US ganstering bankers and bribed politicians and their knowings is on the way for the sake of the Human Being.
It was never about race, religion, or superiority, inferiority, cleverness, uncleverness, Best, worse. It's about corruption, cupidity and nastiness. And we all see that self-evident on what going on Palestine's Genocide made on our behalf but for the colonization that fill bribed polticians and trillonaires corrupters.
That is actually the face of our world toward the Infinite we deseperately watch. But no infinite without justice or signe the end of justice meaning.
Thank you for sharing this
Always. Hasbara has to always be debunked
I think:
I think:
The Core Problem:
The Text Assumes the 1968–1970 Binational Horizon Remains Politically Plausible
The 1970 Fatah program — and the way the text presents it — is grounded in the assumption that a democratic, binational unitary state is a viable conciliatory solution for both Palestinians and Israeli Jews.
This assumption was historically reasonable in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a period when:
a) Israeli settlements were few and not yet irreversible;
b) structural Jewish supremacism had not yet reached its current openly genocidal phase;
c) apartheid was not yet formally articulated by Israel itself;
d) parts of the Zionist left still invoked the language of coexistence and binationalism.
The text reproduces this earlier structure as if it still possessed political density in 2024–2025.
Contemporary Palestinian thinkers argue quite explicitly that this is no longer analytically defensible nor politically beneficial.
Relevant Contemporary Authors
Joseph Massad, The Persistence of the Palestinian Question (2006); Crucifying Palestine (2023):
coexistence with a genocidal regime is structurally impossible and conceptually legitimizing of colonial power.
Jamil Hilal, Where Now for the Palestinian National Movement? (2019):
a democratic single state only becomes thinkable after the end of the colonial structure.
Noura Erakat, Justice for Some (2019) and post-2023 essays:
the one-state framework is often used by Western actors as an ideological displacement that avoids confronting power relations.
Ilan Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006), Ten Myths About Israel (2017):
structural elimination precedes any discussion of constitutional forms.
Salman Abu Sitta, The Atlas of Palestine:
coexistence cannot override the right of return nor the dismantling of settler-colonial architecture.
The text does not reflect any of these shifts. It remains embedded in the intellectual world of 1968–1973, which contemporary scholars now treat as historically important but analytically outdated.
2. The Text Treats Jewish-Israeli Willingness to Coexist as an Open Variable — Which is Inconsistent with Current Social Realities
A central premise of the text is that there exists a sufficiently large segment of Israeli society open to egalitarian political coexistence.
However, empirical data — including the very survey referenced in the original text, showing 82% supporting ongoing atrocities and 53% supporting the physical expulsion of Palestinians — invalidates this assumption.
Contemporary Palestinian thought is clear:
> The problem is not a lack of dialogue; it is the overwhelming social entrenchment of Jewish supremacism within Israel.
Key authors:
Azmi Bishara, The Arab Question (2008):
Israeli political culture is structurally incapable of producing an egalitarian civic identity.
Rashid Khalidi, The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine (2020):
Zionism functionally requires demographic domination.
Tareq Baconi, Hamas Contained (2018), essays 2023–2024:
Israeli society has internalized eliminationism as a consensus position.
Abdel Razzaq Takriti, Monsoon Revolution (2013), post-2023 commentary:
Israeli public opinion is fundamentally shaped by settler-colonial incentives.
The text treats Israeli supremacism as contingent rather than structural — a position contemporary Palestinian scholarship considers analytically untenable.
3. The Text Fails to Recognize the Paradigmatic Shift from “National Liberation + Right of Return” to “Full Decolonization”.
Palestinian intellectual history has moved through several phases:
1. Territorial national liberation (1930s–1967)
2. Revolutionary binationalism and the “democratic state” vision (1968–1982)
3. Human rights and statehood diplomacy (1990s–2010s)
4. Decolonization paradigm (2010s–2024) — the current stage
The text is framed entirely within stage 2, ignoring the conceptual transformations in stages 3 and
4.
In today’s intellectual landscape, Palestinian scholars broadly converge on the following principles:
The issue is not a conflict between equivalent national movements; it is a settler-colonial elimination project.
Constitutional or binational arrangements become plausible only after the dismantling of structures of domination.
As long as genocide, mass displacement, and demographic engineering continue, coexistence frameworks are fantasies.
Representative scholars include:
Yousef Munayyer (2024 essays)
Lana Tatour
Saree Makdisi, Tolerance Is a Wasteland (2022)
Hamid Dabashi, Dreams of a Nation (2006), new essays
Khaled Hroub (Islamic political thought)
The text’s analytical horizon predates these developments.
4. The article Frames Coexistence as a Moral Objective but Fails to Acknowledge the Power Asymmetry
It adopts a universalist moral frame (“shared rights,” “common citizenship,” “conciliation”), treating cohabitation and expulsion as moral polarities.
Contemporary Palestinian theorists argue that:
> Colonized peoples have no moral obligation to formulate coexistence frameworks for their colonizers.
The article unintentionally creates a false moral symmetry between Israeli mass displacement, torture, siege, elimination policies
versus
palestinian hypothetical ability to expel Israelis (which does not exist in material reality).
This is a conceptual error highlighted by:
Edward Said, The End of the Peace Process (2000)
Gary Fields, Enclosure (2017)
Mahmoud Mamdani, Neither Settler nor Native (2020)
The analysis inverts the asymmetry by presenting both sides as if they possessed comparable agency.
5. Why Citing the 1970 Fatah Program Today is Harmful to the Palestinian Struggle
Contemporary Palestinian scholarship identifies three core dangers:
(a) It creates the illusion of a “middle ground.”
Such a middle ground does not exist under conditions of ongoing elimination.
(b) It shifts the terrain from decolonization → reconciliation.
Reconciliation without structural dismantlement is a colonial pacification mechanism.
(c) It reinforces the colonial demand that the oppressed demonstrate moral superiority.
Meanwhile, the colonizer retains full impunity.
By ignoring these critiques, the text reproduces what many Palestinian intellectuals consider:
> a well-intentioned but politically disarming discourse that inadvertently legitimizes ongoing colonial violence.
CONCLUSION
The text reflects an important historical phase of Palestinian thought (1968–1973).
However, presenting it as a viable political framework today is viewed by contemporary Palestinian scholars as:
analytically anachronistic,
morally naïve,
politically counterproductive,
structurally aligned with colonial neutralization strategies.
The most important absence in the text is the foundational insight of current Palestinian political theory:
> No democratic constitutional project is conceivable while one side maintains a genocidal, eliminationist colonial structure — and this side possesses all the coercive power.
Therefore, contemporary Palestinian thought would conclude that the text:
fails to confront the structural nature of Zionist political ideology,
underestimates Israeli social adherence to supremacism,
assumes a colonizing subject that no longer exists (if it ever did),
and shifts the debate from decolonization to constitutional utopianism.
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
Palestinian Thinkers (Secular, Marxist, Islamist, Liberal)
Abu-Lughod, Ibrahim. The Transformation of Palestine.
Abu Sitta, Salman. The Atlas of Palestine.
Baconi, Tareq. Hamas Contained; Post-2023 essays.
Bishara, Azmi. The Arab Question.
Dabashi, Hamid. Dreams of a Nation; Post-Orientalism.
Erakat, Noura. Justice for Some; essays 2023–24.
Hilal, Jamil. Where Now for the Palestinian National Movement?
Hroub, Khaled. Hamas: Political Thought and Practice.
Kanafani, Ghassan. The Resistance Literature.
Khalidi, Rashid. The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine.
Khalidi, Walid. From Haven to Conquest.
Makdisi, Saree. Palestine Inside Out; Tolerance Is a Wasteland.
Massad, Joseph. The Persistence of the Palestinian Question; Crucifying Palestine.
Munayyer, Yousef. Essays 2023–25.
Rouhana, Nadim. Israel and Its Palestinian Citizens.
Said, Edward. The Question of Palestine; The End of the Peace Process.
Shalhoub-Kevorkian, Nadera. Security Theology.
Tatour, Lana. “Conditional Citizenship,” “Settler-Colonial Racialization,” etc.
Takriti, Abdel Razzaq. Essays 2023–25.
Jewish Anti-Zionist and Critical Israeli Scholars
Auerbach, Jerold. The Jewish State.
Butler, Judith. Parting Ways.
Gordon, Neve. Israel’s Occupation.
Pappé, Ilan. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine; Ten Myths About Israel.
Peled, Yoav. Shas and the Israeli Working Class.
Shenhav, Yehouda. The Arab Jews.
Zertal, Idith & Akiva Eldar. Lords of the Land.
Settler-Colonial Framework & Global Theoretical Context
Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth.
Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native.”
Coulthard, Glen. Red Skin, White Masks.
Mamdani, Mahmood. Neither Settler nor Native.
Smith, Andrea. Conquest.
Legal, Human Rights, and International Documentation
Human Rights Watch, A Threshold Crossed (2021).
Amnesty International, Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians (2022).
UN OCHA reports on Gaza (2023–2025).
UN Special Rapporteurs: Francesca Albanese reports (2022–2025).
International Court of Justice filings (South Africa v. Israel, 2023)
But, on the whole, I liked it a lot 😉
A very good revelant say but we to mention that it's due precisely to western billonaires and bribed politicians who create deliberately disasters in ex-colonies to steal goods and ressouces with often an accomplicite dictatorship government on site, like in Africa and Asia, South America. We never link - as we should - the poverty of people to the crooked government that ‘ex'colonizer country like UK, France put in place to keep having bribed wealth coming in their own pocket.
But what is more abhorrent is that those western billonaires corrupters use our own publics goods, ressouces and services to do so. So western countries get in debt and the massive immigration just for filling indecently and hugely amount of money in the pocket of billonaires, trillonaires.
Billonaires, trillonaires are the cancer of any real and serious democracy as they deprived all the people for the cast of the 1%, - the monsters in fact
When we will understand that, our all dept will desappear as it an empty trap to mislead people and ensalve them all around the world for the same.
The Fall of US ganstering bankers and bribed politicians and their knowings is on the way for the sake of the Human Being.
It was never about race, religion, or superiority, inferiority, cleverness, uncleverness, Best, worse. It's about corruption, cupidity and nastiness. And we all see that self-evident on what going on Palestine's Genocide made on our behalf but for the colonization that fill bribed polticians and trillonaires corrupters.
That is actually the face of our world toward the Infinite we deseperately watch. But no infinite without justice or signe the end of justice meaning.
https://substack.com/@suevpate/note/c-143612584?r=2vnozh