"How is the "Palestinian monster" created? The psychology of dehumanization in Israeli discourse", an article by Suleiman Assaf, of the One Democratic State Initiative, on 180 Post:
"How is the "Palestinian monster" created? The psychology of dehumanization in Israeli discourse", an article by Suleiman Assaf, of the One Democratic State Initiative, on 180 Post:
"How is the "Palestinian monster" created? The psychology of dehumanization in Israeli discourse", an article by Suleiman Assaf, of the One Democratic State Initiative, on 180 Post:
"How is the "Palestinian monster" created? The psychology of dehumanization in Israeli discourse", an article by Suleiman Assaf, of the One Democratic State Initiative, on 180 Post:
اطلعوا على طرحنا: mobadara.ps
ساهموا في جهودنا: mobadara.ps/ar/sign-up
Is it true that Iranian society must choose between one freedom and another? A coordinator at the One Democratic State Initiative interviews four members of the Iranian "Tanide" collective. This is a shortened version of the interview, which can be found in full on our website:
https://mobadara.ps/en/articles/iran-a-third-path-for-true-liberation-and-democracy/
1- How are things in Iran? What is the media not reporting?
What is often underreported is the entanglement of domestic repression and external geopolitical aggression alone. Civilian populations are going through economic crisis, inflation, political repression, monetary instability. External sanctions, military or strategic pressures are frequently framed as solutions or interventions, but in practice, they tend to intensify precarity for ordinary people.
Media sources are highly polarized: The state-controlled media broadcast propaganda, such as military victories; while media aligned with U.S.–Israeli political interests present highly misleading narratives, such as mistranslating Trump’s “return Iran to the Stone Age” as “return the Islamic Republic to the Stone Age.” Even when they reflect reality, they reflect only fragments of it.
2- How does all of that make people in Iran feel?
The answer is multilayered. The fact the country functions without major disruption and is capable of defending its sovereignty in the face of foreign imperialist aggression is a source of reassurance for many, while it is disappointing for those who may have seen this moment as their only chance to overthrow the regime.
The most recent crackdown on protests across Iran, with a death toll exceeding thousands, remains an open wound. The internet blackout which remains in place after the ceasefire is something that must be taken very seriously. New regulations that restrict access for the majority are also being introduced. I see this moment as marking an irreversible shift toward the total securitization of communication. This is deeply troubling.
3- What do you think the U.S. and the colony’s aims in Iran are?
There are several goals, and those of the U.S. do not entirely coincide with those of Israel. Israel seems to be interested in a very weak and destabilised Iran which could be either divided or embroiled in civil war. Although not a goal in itself, regime change would weaken Iran and allow them to curb its nuclear ambitions, missile plans and regional power.
But this aggression needs to be situated within broader regional and global dynamics: the United States’ concerns over its declining global hegemony and its competition with China and Russia, as well as Israel’s efforts to consolidate a regional coalition to secure its dominant position through its genocidal will. It also is part of a broader authoritarian turn within global capitalism, alongside the rise of reactionary nationalisms across the world.
4- How has the aggression affected Iran? Has it changed people’s perception or position on the regime?
Although the Islamic Republic had already lost substantial legitimacy among the general population, the war has reinforced cohesion among loyalists. This is consistent with the well‑established “rally‑around‑the‑flag” effect, in which external aggression temporarily consolidates support for the state among its core constituents, even if long‑term legitimacy remains deeply eroded.
There is also a third position — one that has consistently opposed both war and the regime’s oppressive nature, while insisting that people must determine their future through their own movements and collective action, and resist any normalization of foreign intervention.
5- You speak of a third position, but aren’t there only two sides here, either with the aggressors or against them?
This binary is itself a political tool designed to eliminate the space for a third position: a position that rejects both authoritarianism and militarism of the Iranian state as well as USA and Israel imperialistic intervention. It is a position that stands against all human rights violations, committed by the U.S. and Israel —particularly the genocide of the Palestinian people— as well as by the Iranian state.
Iran is currently the target of illegal and aggressive attacks, and it has the right to defend itself. At the same time, the Iranian regime has not historically been a force for peace in the region. So regarding the dichotomy I would say: Neither with foreign aggression nor with the Islamic Republic.
6- Some claim that now is not the time to talk about the regime’s oppression, as it justifies the invasion. How do you view this?
This argument is based on a false causal link. The United States and Israel did not launch military attacks on Iran because the Iranian state is authoritarian or oppressive. Neither of them are interested in freedom! Furthermore, the authoritarian character of a state does not grant other states the right to use military force against the country. Therefore, discussing the Islamic Republic’s repression cannot logically be interpreted as justifying the aggression.
In my opinion we can never stop talking about the regime's oppression. The recent massacre was just a few months ago. The regime has never stopped repressing its own people. We should also not forget the successive waves of popular uprisings across the region, including the Arab Spring and several uprisings in Iran and Turkey. The fact that all regional powers have aggressively repressed such movements should caution us against overlooking a key contradiction.
7- The Islamic Republic claims identitarian legitimacy. Do you feel this has weakened Iranian society, made it more susceptible to foreign infiltration?
I would say yes. There has been discrimination on the basis of identity at several levels. The doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih is imposed on non-Shiites, but also on Shiites that have different beliefs or opinions. There are prohibitions on Kurds and Balochs learning in their mother language or learning about their own cultures and histories at school. There also is economic disparity in the regions they inhabit.
The Iranian regime has imposed a “normative identity” that is Shi’a, Persian, and male. This is a form of supremacy that has been consolidated through the constitution and across a range of social and cultural institutions that structure everyday life. All of this weakens society's capacity to protect itself from those wielding, but also weakens it in the face of external aggression.
8- What future do you envision for Iranian society?
In the short- and medium-term, I expect an intensification of repression. Iranian civil society appears to be in one of its weakest positions in decades. Even channels that once allowed for some degree of navigation within the political landscape have largely disappeared.
For example, even the country’s largest and most influential charity organization was shut down a few years ago — a move that effectively stripped society of an important civic capacity to sustain and repair itself independently of the state. Similar patterns can be seen in the treatment of teachers’ union activists and other segments of civil society.
9- How can Iranian society both within their country and outside it shape that future? How can those who support freedom and democracy for Iran help achieve it?
Immediate efforts could be focused on economic hardships and on Internet access. But political efforts are key. Although they are enemies, the U.S.-Israel and the Iranian regime are co-producers of the same trap: you are either with us or with them. This is not accidental. Both poles benefit from the binary, because it eliminates the political space where a genuine emancipatory alternative could breathe.
So it is important to resist this binary. The third path must work harder and speak more clearly than either side. It is the only honest political position because it is the one that refuses to make the suffering of people into an instrument for either pole's power. That is precisely why it is so hard to build. And precisely why it matters.
Is it true that Iranian society must choose between one freedom and another? A coordinator at the One Democratic State Initiative interviews four members of the Iranian "Tanide" collective. This is a shortened version of the interview, which can be found in full on our website:
https://mobadara.ps/en/articles/iran-a-third-path-for-true-liberation-and-democracy/
1- How are things in Iran? What is the media not reporting?
What is often underreported is the entanglement of domestic repression and external geopolitical aggression alone. Civilian populations are going through economic crisis, inflation, political repression, monetary instability. External sanctions, military or strategic pressures are frequently framed as solutions or interventions, but in practice, they tend to intensify precarity for ordinary people.
Media sources are highly polarized: The state-controlled media broadcast propaganda, such as military victories; while media aligned with U.S.–Israeli political interests present highly misleading narratives, such as mistranslating Trump’s “return Iran to the Stone Age” as “return the Islamic Republic to the Stone Age.” Even when they reflect reality, they reflect only fragments of it.
2- How does all of that make people in Iran feel?
The answer is multilayered. The fact the country functions without major disruption and is capable of defending its sovereignty in the face of foreign imperialist aggression is a source of reassurance for many, while it is disappointing for those who may have seen this moment as their only chance to overthrow the regime.
The most recent crackdown on protests across Iran, with a death toll exceeding thousands, remains an open wound. The internet blackout which remains in place after the ceasefire is something that must be taken very seriously. New regulations that restrict access for the majority are also being introduced. I see this moment as marking an irreversible shift toward the total securitization of communication. This is deeply troubling.
3- What do you think the U.S. and the colony’s aims in Iran are?
There are several goals, and those of the U.S. do not entirely coincide with those of Israel. Israel seems to be interested in a very weak and destabilised Iran which could be either divided or embroiled in civil war. Although not a goal in itself, regime change would weaken Iran and allow them to curb its nuclear ambitions, missile plans and regional power.
But this aggression needs to be situated within broader regional and global dynamics: the United States’ concerns over its declining global hegemony and its competition with China and Russia, as well as Israel’s efforts to consolidate a regional coalition to secure its dominant position through its genocidal will. It also is part of a broader authoritarian turn within global capitalism, alongside the rise of reactionary nationalisms across the world.
4- How has the aggression affected Iran? Has it changed people’s perception or position on the regime?
Although the Islamic Republic had already lost substantial legitimacy among the general population, the war has reinforced cohesion among loyalists. This is consistent with the well‑established “rally‑around‑the‑flag” effect, in which external aggression temporarily consolidates support for the state among its core constituents, even if long‑term legitimacy remains deeply eroded.
There is also a third position — one that has consistently opposed both war and the regime’s oppressive nature, while insisting that people must determine their future through their own movements and collective action, and resist any normalization of foreign intervention.
5- You speak of a third position, but aren’t there only two sides here, either with the aggressors or against them?
This binary is itself a political tool designed to eliminate the space for a third position: a position that rejects both authoritarianism and militarism of the Iranian state as well as USA and Israel imperialistic intervention. It is a position that stands against all human rights violations, committed by the U.S. and Israel —particularly the genocide of the Palestinian people— as well as by the Iranian state.
Iran is currently the target of illegal and aggressive attacks, and it has the right to defend itself. At the same time, the Iranian regime has not historically been a force for peace in the region. So regarding the dichotomy I would say: Neither with foreign aggression nor with the Islamic Republic.
6- Some claim that now is not the time to talk about the regime’s oppression, as it justifies the invasion. How do you view this?
This argument is based on a false causal link. The United States and Israel did not launch military attacks on Iran because the Iranian state is authoritarian or oppressive. Neither of them are interested in freedom! Furthermore, the authoritarian character of a state does not grant other states the right to use military force against the country. Therefore, discussing the Islamic Republic’s repression cannot logically be interpreted as justifying the aggression.
In my opinion we can never stop talking about the regime's oppression. The recent massacre was just a few months ago. The regime has never stopped repressing its own people. We should also not forget the successive waves of popular uprisings across the region, including the Arab Spring and several uprisings in Iran and Turkey. The fact that all regional powers have aggressively repressed such movements should caution us against overlooking a key contradiction.
7- The Islamic Republic claims identitarian legitimacy. Do you feel this has weakened Iranian society, made it more susceptible to foreign infiltration?
I would say yes. There has been discrimination on the basis of identity at several levels. The doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih is imposed on non-Shiites, but also on Shiites that have different beliefs or opinions. There are prohibitions on Kurds and Balochs learning in their mother language or learning about their own cultures and histories at school. There also is economic disparity in the regions they inhabit.
The Iranian regime has imposed a “normative identity” that is Shi’a, Persian, and male. This is a form of supremacy that has been consolidated through the constitution and across a range of social and cultural institutions that structure everyday life. All of this weakens society's capacity to protect itself from those wielding, but also weakens it in the face of external aggression.
8- What future do you envision for Iranian society?
In the short- and medium-term, I expect an intensification of repression. Iranian civil society appears to be in one of its weakest positions in decades. Even channels that once allowed for some degree of navigation within the political landscape have largely disappeared.
For example, even the country’s largest and most influential charity organization was shut down a few years ago — a move that effectively stripped society of an important civic capacity to sustain and repair itself independently of the state. Similar patterns can be seen in the treatment of teachers’ union activists and other segments of civil society.
9- How can Iranian society both within their country and outside it shape that future? How can those who support freedom and democracy for Iran help achieve it?
Immediate efforts could be focused on economic hardships and on Internet access. But political efforts are key. Although they are enemies, the U.S.-Israel and the Iranian regime are co-producers of the same trap: you are either with us or with them. This is not accidental. Both poles benefit from the binary, because it eliminates the political space where a genuine emancipatory alternative could breathe.
So it is important to resist this binary. The third path must work harder and speak more clearly than either side. It is the only honest political position because it is the one that refuses to make the suffering of people into an instrument for either pole's power. That is precisely why it is so hard to build. And precisely why it matters.
The ruling coalition of the Hessian regional government in Germany is planning to introduce legislation that would criminalise "denying Israel’s right to exist" with up to five years in prison. The bill will be introduced this Friday, 8th of May, the day of liberation from the Nazi regime, in another baffling attempt to tie the existence of the settler colony of Israel to the “redemption of Germany”.
Even among the Zionist media establishment, the legal basis of the bill is not perceived as strong or consistent. Denying the right of Israel to exist is suggested to be denying the holocaust and an incitement to mass violence. This represents the poor quality of German discourse very well, and even good-faith interpretations fail when considering the case of anti-Zionist Jews, for example. Will the German state lock up Jewish people for expressing what they present as the wrong opinion?
Explaining why these arguments are nonsensical is not even necessary - basic freedom of expression is being attacked in favour of Israel and nothing else. You can say whatever you want about any state that has ever existed (including Germany itself), but somehow even questioning the existence of an ethnosupremacist settler colony is forbidden.
So why, what’s the point? Are German politicians simply that daft? What motivates interest groups behind this to pursue something like this? One interpretation is that they recognise the losing battle they are fighting. Normal, vanilla criticism of Israel is now mainstream even in Germany, and the establishment knows where the next step leads. People will ask themselves - why is it not possible to have a democratic state with equal rights that does not discriminate on the basis of identity?
Preventing people from asking themselves this very simple question is the goal here, which is why the classic Holocaust narrative is being revived in order to scare people into silence. In the narrative battle we are fighting, the very simple question of a state’s right to exist becomes an opportunity for us to shift the balance of power.
The ruling coalition of the Hessian regional government in Germany is planning to introduce legislation that would criminalise "denying Israel’s right to exist" with up to five years in prison. The bill will be introduced this Friday, 8th of May, the day of liberation from the Nazi regime, in another baffling attempt to tie the existence of the settler colony of Israel to the “redemption of Germany”.
Even among the Zionist media establishment, the legal basis of the bill is not perceived as strong or consistent. Denying the right of Israel to exist is suggested to be denying the holocaust and an incitement to mass violence. This represents the poor quality of German discourse very well, and even good-faith interpretations fail when considering the case of anti-Zionist Jews, for example. Will the German state lock up Jewish people for expressing what they present as the wrong opinion?
Explaining why these arguments are nonsensical is not even necessary - basic freedom of expression is being attacked in favour of Israel and nothing else. You can say whatever you want about any state that has ever existed (including Germany itself), but somehow even questioning the existence of an ethnosupremacist settler colony is forbidden.
So why, what’s the point? Are German politicians simply that daft? What motivates interest groups behind this to pursue something like this? One interpretation is that they recognise the losing battle they are fighting. Normal, vanilla criticism of Israel is now mainstream even in Germany, and the establishment knows where the next step leads. People will ask themselves - why is it not possible to have a democratic state with equal rights that does not discriminate on the basis of identity?
Preventing people from asking themselves this very simple question is the goal here, which is why the classic Holocaust narrative is being revived in order to scare people into silence. In the narrative battle we are fighting, the very simple question of a state’s right to exist becomes an opportunity for us to shift the balance of power.
The ruling coalition of the Hessian regional government in Germany is planning to introduce legislation that would criminalise "denying Israel’s right to exist" with up to five years in prison. The bill will be introduced this Friday, 8th of May, the day of liberation from the Nazi regime, in another baffling attempt to tie the existence of the settler colony of Israel to the “redemption of Germany”.
Even among the Zionist media establishment, the legal basis of the bill is not perceived as strong or consistent. Denying the right of Israel to exist is suggested to be denying the holocaust and an incitement to mass violence. This represents the poor quality of German discourse very well, and even good-faith interpretations fail when considering the case of anti-Zionist Jews, for example. Will the German state lock up Jewish people for expressing what they present as the wrong opinion?
Explaining why these arguments are nonsensical is not even necessary - basic freedom of expression is being attacked in favour of Israel and nothing else. You can say whatever you want about any state that has ever existed (including Germany itself), but somehow even questioning the existence of an ethnosupremacist settler colony is forbidden.
So why, what’s the point? Are German politicians simply that daft? What motivates interest groups behind this to pursue something like this? One interpretation is that they recognise the losing battle they are fighting. Normal, vanilla criticism of Israel is now mainstream even in Germany, and the establishment knows where the next step leads. People will ask themselves - why is it not possible to have a democratic state with equal rights that does not discriminate on the basis of identity?
Preventing people from asking themselves this very simple question is the goal here, which is why the classic Holocaust narrative is being revived in order to scare people into silence. In the narrative battle we are fighting, the very simple question of a state’s right to exist becomes an opportunity for us to shift the balance of power.
The ruling coalition of the Hessian regional government in Germany is planning to introduce legislation that would criminalise "denying Israel’s right to exist" with up to five years in prison. The bill will be introduced this Friday, 8th of May, the day of liberation from the Nazi regime, in another baffling attempt to tie the existence of the settler colony of Israel to the “redemption of Germany”.
Even among the Zionist media establishment, the legal basis of the bill is not perceived as strong or consistent. Denying the right of Israel to exist is suggested to be denying the holocaust and an incitement to mass violence. This represents the poor quality of German discourse very well, and even good-faith interpretations fail when considering the case of anti-Zionist Jews, for example. Will the German state lock up Jewish people for expressing what they present as the wrong opinion?
Explaining why these arguments are nonsensical is not even necessary - basic freedom of expression is being attacked in favour of Israel and nothing else. You can say whatever you want about any state that has ever existed (including Germany itself), but somehow even questioning the existence of an ethnosupremacist settler colony is forbidden.
So why, what’s the point? Are German politicians simply that daft? What motivates interest groups behind this to pursue something like this? One interpretation is that they recognise the losing battle they are fighting. Normal, vanilla criticism of Israel is now mainstream even in Germany, and the establishment knows where the next step leads. People will ask themselves - why is it not possible to have a democratic state with equal rights that does not discriminate on the basis of identity?
Preventing people from asking themselves this very simple question is the goal here, which is why the classic Holocaust narrative is being revived in order to scare people into silence. In the narrative battle we are fighting, the very simple question of a state’s right to exist becomes an opportunity for us to shift the balance of power.
حتى الآن، لم يحدث أي اختراق في المشهد السياسي لفلسطينيي الـ48. فاللحظة "المسرحية"، أي التوقيع على تعهّد بخوض الانتخابات بقائمة مشتركة، التي عُرضت في سخنين بعد الهبّة المباركة قبل أشهر، وبدت وكأنها لحظة تحوّلية، انطفأت سريعًا دون أن تترك أثرًا يُذكر.
وتنبع صعوبة ذلك، ضمن عوامل عديدة، من الواقع المركّب لفلسطينيي الداخل، أي تحوّل العلاقة مع المواطنة الإسرائيلية-الكولونيالية إلى علاقة عضوية، لا عابرة. ومع تآكل هذه المواطنة بفعل التغوّل الإسرائيلي، تزداد هشاشة وضع فلسطينيي الداخل، ما يفرض التفكير بصيغ مختلفة ومبتكرة، ليس فقط للنجاة، بل للحفاظ على ما تحقق من إنجازات، والاستعداد لمواجهة المستقبل.
لقد دخلت الساحة السياسية، ومعها الخطاب، في حالة تفكك. وانزلقت بعض الأوساط نحو حرف "القائمة المشتركة" عن هدفها الأصلي، باتجاه أوهام تحالف عربي–يهودي "ديمقراطي" يستند إلى توجهات ليبرالية صهيونية. ثم جاء من دفع هذا المنحى إلى أقصاه، بالانخراط في حكومة استيطانية صهيونية، في سابقة غير معهودة في تاريخ العمل السياسي والكفاحي لفلسطينيي الداخل.
اليوم، يراهن أنصار هذا المسار على تحالف بينيت–لبيد باعتباره فرصة لإسقاط حكومة نتنياهو في الانتخابات القادمة. لا شك في أن أحدًا لا يرغب في استمرار هذه الحكومة المجرمة، لكن العودة إلى الرهان على حكومة استيطانية بديلة، واستعداد تيار "الجنوبية" للانخراط مجددًا فيها، رغم إعلان بينيت ولبيد رفض الاعتماد على الصوت العربي باسم "تخفيف الضرر"، تعني عمليًا مزيدًا من التنازلات.
الرهان على حكومة قادمة، تحت شعار إسقاط نتنياهو، ومسايرة خطاب التهافت والسقوط، في غياب رؤية وطنية متماسكة، ليس تكتيكًا ذكيًا، بل وصفة مضمونة لاستمرار العقم السياسي، بل شكل من أشكال الانتحار السياسي. إنه يجمّد الفكر والخيال، ويمنع بلورة بديل، ويؤخر ولادة حالة سياسية وطنية جديدة، دينامية، مستقلة، وقادرة على التأثير في الرأي العام.
نحن أمام ظرف سياسي وإنساني غير مسبوق في خطورته وشمولية تأثيراته التدميرية، ما يجعل مهمة البحث عن صيغة وطنية وأخلاقية وعملية قادرة على لملمة الشمل وفتح أفق جديد مهمة معقدة للغاية، لكنها ملحّة، بل وجودية.
مقتطفات من مقال "المراهنة على حكومة قادمة: وصفة لدوام العقم" لعوض عبد الفتاح على موقع عرب 48:
https://www.arab48.com/مقالات-وآراء/2026/04/29/المراهنة-على-حكومة-قادمة-وصفة-لدوام-العقم
Palestinian local elections were held in the West Bank and in Deir al-Balah in the Gaza Strip on April 25, for the first time since October 7. What do the electoral process and its results reveal about the political and social reality of Palestinian society?
First, regarding turnout: The elections saw low voter turnout in major Palestinian cities, such as Hebron, where only 30% of voters cast their ballots, and in Deir al-Balah—the only area in the Gaza Strip where elections were held—where 22% of voters cast their ballots, the lowest rate in Palestine. Meanwhile, the town of Kafr Qalil in Nablus witnessed a rare occurrence, where the voter turnout approached 0%.
Second, regarding competition: 197 lists won unopposed, including in major cities such as Ramallah and Nablus; in Qalqilya, no list submitted a candidacy. Naturally, this does not mean that residents of these areas hold no other views, but rather that some chose not to participate in the electoral contest. This stems from several reasons, including ongoing repression and the suppression of competing lists, as occurred in Nablus.
Third, regarding the conditions for participation: The Election Commission, by presidential decree (due to the suspension of the Legislative Council), required candidates to adhere to the PLO’s program, which stipulates recognition of the legitimacy of the occupying state. Thus, those opposing such recognition were excluded, and the elections became more akin to a political pledge of allegiance to the Fatah project rather than a democratic process. Furthermore, the new electoral system focuses on choosing individuals rather than lists. This reinforces tribalism, binding voters to social norms rather than serving as a foundation for free political choice.
Fourth, regarding freedom of choice: Approximately 100,000 Palestinian families rely on the pensions of Palestinian Authority employees. Their need for these pensions is even more acute due to the West Bank being burdened with long-term debt as a result of the Paris Economic Agreement. To make matters worse, the number of these employees is being reduced, and their pensions are not being paid in full due to the Authority’s dismissal of staff on one hand and the occupation’s restrictions on the other. Can we speak of freedom of choice in this clientelist reality?
Fifth, regarding the political program: While Palestinians face a daily reality marked by existential danger (genocide in Gaza, settlement expansion and displacement in the West Bank), the electoral process has produced municipal service programs focused on repairing sidewalks or traffic management. This disconnect between the electoral process and lived reality is one of the most painful and dangerous aspects of the current landscape. The political process has become nothing more than an administrative ritual isolated from settlement expansion and genocide; this is no longer merely an organizational flaw, but rather a political whitewashing of a reality that people do not experience and that does not touch their existential priorities.
Finally, let us not forget that the Palestinian people are not only present in the West Bank and Gaza, but also in the occupied interior and the diaspora. Colonialism has worked to dismantle our people not only by occupying our land and expelling us from it, but also by perpetuating this fragmentation through the creation of various political bodies and entities, so that each segment of the Palestinian people operates within its own framework in isolation from the rest of the people. Therefore, the unity of the land, the people, and the cause compels us to create a Palestinian political framework in which all members of our people participate, wherever they may be.
No Palestinian political organization—neither in 1948-occupied Palestine, nor in the West Bank, nor in Gaza, nor in the diaspora—has worked to create this framework. Palestinians must not remain mere observers of this decline in the national movement, its detachment from our reality, and its subjugation to narrow calculations. Rather, we must engage in political groups that propose action plans directly related to our concerns, form a framework for political action—not for subservience to a leader or for securing positions—and establish a single constituent assembly for all Palestinians
انعقدت الانتخابات المحلية الفلسطينية في الضفة الغربية، وفي دير البلح بقطاع غزة، في 25 نيسان/أبريل. فماذا تكشف عملية الانتخابات و نتائجها عن الواقع السياسي والاجتماعي الذي آل إليه المجتمع الفلسطيني؟
أولاً، من ناحية المشاركة: شهدت الانتخابات نسبة اقتراع متدنية في كبرى المدن الفلسطينية، كالخليل، التي اقترع فيها 30٪ فقط من ناخبيها، وفي دير البلح، المنطقة الوحيدة بقطاع غزة التي عُقدت فيها الانتخابات، 22٪ من ناخبيها أدلوا بأصواتهم، وهي النسبة الأدنى على مستوى فلسطين. بينما شهدت بلدة كفر قليل بنابلس حالة نادرة، حيث اقتربت نسبة الاقتراع فيها 0٪.
ثانياً، من ناحية المنافسة: فازت 197 قائمة بالتزكية، لعدم وجود قوائم منافسة، من بينها مدن كبرى كرام الله ونابلس، وفي قلقيلية، لم تتقدم أي قائمة للترشح. وبطبيعة الحال، هذا لا يعني أن لا رأي آخر بين سكان هذه المناطق، بل أن هناك من لم يخوضوا المواجهة الانتخابية. ويعود ذلك إلى عدة أسباب، منها استمرار القمع، وحصار القوائم المنافسة، كما حدث في نابلس.
ثالثاً، في شروط المشاركة: اشترطت لجنة الانتخابات بمرسوم رئاسي (نظرا لتعطل المجلس التشريعي) التزام المرشحين ببرنامج منظمة التحرير الذي ينصّ على الاعتراف بشرعية دولة الاحتلال. فشُرعِن اقصاء من يعارضون الاعتراف وصارت الانتخابات أشبه ببيعة سياسية لمشروع فتح بدلًا من عملية ديمقراطية. كما أن النظام الانتخابي الجديد القائم على التصويت لأفراد لا قوائم يعزز العشائرية فيقيّد الناخبين بأعراف مجتمعية عوض أن يشكل أساساً لخيار سياسي حرّ.
رابعاً، في حرية الاختيار: تعتاش حوالي مئة ألف عائلة فلسطينية من معاشات موظفي السلطة الفلسطينية. وحاجتهم لهذه المعاشات أشد نتيجة إغراق الضفة بالديون الطويلة الأمد نتيجة اتفاقية باريس الاقتصادية. وما يزيد الطين بلة هو تقليل عدد هؤلاء الموظفون وعدم دفع معاشاتهم كاملة نتيجة طرد السلطة لموظفين من جهة وتضييق الاحتلال من جهة أخرى. فهل يمكننا التكلم عن حرية اختيار في هذا الواقع الزبائني؟
خامساً، من ناحية المشروع: بينما يعيش الفلسطينيون واقعاً يومياً يتسم بالخطر الوجودي (الإبادة في غزة، التوسع الاستيطاني والتهجير في الضفة)، أتت العملية الانتخابية ببرامج بلدية خدماتية تتحدث عن ترميم أرصفة أو تنظيم سير. وهذا الانفصال بين العملية الانتخابية والواقع المعاش هو أحد أكثر الجوانب إيلاماً وخطورة في المشهد الحالي. فقد غدت العملية السياسية عبارة عن طقس إداري معزول عن الاستيطان والإبادة، فإن ذلك لا يعود مجرد خلل تنظيمي، بل يتحول إلى غسيل سياسي لواقع لا يعيشه الناس، ولا يلامس أولوياتهم الوجودية.
وأخيراً، لا ننسى أن الشعب الفلسطين لا يتواجد في الضفة وغزة فحسب، بل ايضاً في الداخل المحتل والشتات. فالاستعمار عمل على تفكيك شعبنا من خلال احتلال أرضنا وطردنا منها فحسب، وهو يعمل على تكريس هذا التفكك من خلال إيجاد هيئات وكيانات سياسية عدة ليمارس كل جزء من الشعب الفلسطيني عمله في إطارها بمعزل عن باقي الشعب. وعليه، إن وحدة الأرض والشعب والقضية تحتّم علينا خلق إطار سياسي فلسطيني يشارك كل أبناء شعبنا أينما كانوا.
لم تعمل أية من التنظيمات السياسية الفلسطينية، لا في الداخل المحتل ولا في الضفة ولا في غزة ولا في الشتات، على خلق هذا الإطار. لسنا مضطرون على مشاهدة هذا الانحدار في الحركة الوطنية الفلسطينية وانفصالها عن واقعنا وارتهانها لحسابات ضيقة. /بل علينا الانخراط في مجموعات سياسية تطرح برامج عمل متعلقة مباشرة بهمومنا وتضعها في سياق مشروع للتحرير والعودة إلى دولة فلسطينية واحدة، وتشكل إطار للفعل السياسي لا للتبعية للقائد ولا لنيل للتوظيفات، وتؤسس لجمعية تأسيسية للكلّ الفلسطيني.
Omer Bartov was interviewed under the title "Zionism must disappear, Israel will remain". Einat Temkin posted what follows. What she said is very much in line with the Tomorrow's Palestine declaration. What do you think?
>I disagree with Omer Bartov 100%, and now I’m also super, triple, extra pissed off.
>I get it, I get it. We (Israelis) were all indoctrinated 24/7/365 but this undying obsession with a mythical, fictional utopian Israel is an insidious lie and fallacy.
>Prof. Bartov is always behind the curve. The quote sounds good but it’s utter BS. In spite of the choice of words, he remains THE Liberal Zionist par excellence. He’s living in a dream.
>THERE IS NO ISRAEL WITHOUT ZIONISM.
>First, it took Prof. Bartov a full year to go from: “There is no genocide in Gaza, I should know, I am the eminent expert on the topic in the whole wide world”, while some of us were screaming and yelling and wailing since Oct. 2023, to his big interview in late 2024 (thanks for the correction Jonathan Ofir), where he flipped 180° and said: “yeah, oopsie, there is CLEARLY a genocide going on in Gaza. I should know, I am the eminent expert on the topic in the whole wide world”.
>Now he’s onto this new nonsensical notion that Zionism is unsalvageable, but the State of Israel is.
>What?!
>Nonsense. Hogwash. Malarkey. Hasbara 3.0.
>THERE IS NO ISRAEL WITHOUT ZIONISM. DUH.
>Just watch. In a year or two Prof. Bartov will have to backtrack on this one as well, and say: “yeah, oopsie, one can’t have a Jewish State which is a democracy and undo all the evils, dismantle Zionism and still call it Israel. I should know, as I am the eminent expert on the topic”.
>Just watch.
>Prof. Bartov, grow up. Snap out of it. Catch up to the rest of us. You’re just making things worse and worse. Let go of the mythical fantasies already. Don’t wait another two years.
>A one state solution, From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be Free, is the ONLY POSSIBLE SOLUTION.
Einat also added in the comments of the same post:
>"For the sake of everyone participating in this comment thread. Any solution which is STILL INSISTING on the viability - not to mention the “justice” - of a two state solution, Israel alongside a Palestinian “state”, whether you call it “Two States, One Homeland” or “One Land for All” (but still separate territories) or a “Bi-National Federation” is a doomed proposition.
>If we end up with two distinct states or territories we are back to checkpoints and borders. Borders decided by whom? Who will man the checkpoints and the borders? Will the Palestinian state/territory be allowed to have a military to man their own checkpoints and borders? Who would set where the borders lie, and the authority, power and the rights awarded to the residents of each of these fictional lovely co-existing territories? Who would control the flow of water from natural bodies of water into said territories? Who would control the airspace and communications and everything that makes a democracy a democracy?
>Sorry all. We cannot have our cake and eat it too.
>We are either all one country with equal rights for every single resident between the river and the sea, without borders, without checkpoints, with full right of return for the Palestinian refugees - as per internationally mandated laws - for everyone who was displaced all the way back to 1948 and before if need be, even if that means thousands and thousands of bourgeois Israelis have to give up their lovely homes, because they’re not theirs at all, without supremacy of a one ethnicity or religion over another, with a constitution, with rule of law, with no guaranteed majority of anyone, or we have nothing - simply continue the way that we’re going and we will reach mutually assured destruction within 50 or 100 years maximum.
>And yes, there is absolutely no reason the name of the one state should not be Palestine. It’s merely indoctrination that makes Jews recoil at the thought. That was the historic name of the land for hundreds of years. One state for all is the only way. I’ll die on this hill."
>
>