The Question is Not: Who Rules Gaza? But Who Rules Meaning?

In connection with the discussion raised by Dr. Ali Jarbaoui in his article "The Rule of Gaza", I believe that the essence of the crisis lies not in who rules Gaza, but in answering the question of who rules meaning? The procedural issue related to the administrative form is merely a simple matter provided that there is political will among the parties involved; however, let us first agree on who the stakeholders are? Especially since Dr. Ali refers to multifaceted and varied interventions in this regard; that is to say, we are, in essence, in a crisis of legitimate definition before we face the crisis of who governs the sector.

As I have raised the issue of meaning in the title, and to prevent anyone from thinking that it is merely a philosophical proposition unrelated to reality; let’s define what is meant by meaning, so that we can all be on the same line with the ideas and perceptions presented; the meaning referred to is related to all the details of the battle that is no longer confined to the "killing" fields nor the fighting, but rather in the arenas of narrative and interpretation as well; who has the right to define what has happened and what is still happening? What is the definition of the event on the narrative front? Was it a "military operation against terrorism", as the colonizer wishes it to be perceived? Or is it a crime against humanity that has reached the level of genocide in a clear definition with all its elements, targeting, and continues to target, humanity before land, and meaning before memory?

Thus, possessing meaning becomes more important and dangerous even than controlling land, simply because land without meaning is just geography without history. The colonizer does not seek merely to erase Gaza from political maps, but strives to erase all of Palestine from the maps of consciousness, language, and history; therefore, it is crucial to treat the issue as a struggle for "meaning" as the other side of the struggle for the right to life, and existence itself; for meaning is what gives the cause its political, economic, social, and even civilizational identity; and it is what can differentiate between victim and perpetrator, right and wrong, which means its appropriation, its embellishment, or its displacement, is a process of redefinition or reprogramming of concepts and perceptions according to the criterion of the right of power, not the power of right.

It is the irony of meaning that has been utilized as a colonial tool when the Nakba was called "War of Independence", the defeat "setback", and the Arab-Israeli conflict referred to as "the Palestinian issue", while the West Bank is called "Judea and Samaria", and the aggression against an unarmed people is termed as "war on terrorism"; and it is through this meaning that an entire people is labeled as human beasts; and yet, it is also, the irony of meaning capable of naming things by their names, not allowing the transformation of genocide into "self-defense", and unable to pass the definition of the event as a "civil conflict", preventing the exportation of the meaning of resistance as "a people’s terrorism against its occupier"; indeed, it is the irony of meaning that means possessing it, the authentic people owning the narrative of history, not the narrative of those who possess the authority of geography; thus, the question of 'who rules meaning?' becomes the more precise question, as it is a pivotal question for understanding our current crisis: Are we the ones who name our reality based on the prices we have paid over a century of time, or are we living in a space where concepts are imposed upon us, making us lose twice: once in the field, and once in definition?

From the Crisis of Meaning to the Predicament of Unity

Dr. Jarbaoui’s assertion that "arrangements regarding this rule have become an essential matter exceeding the determination of the sector's future, to be the entry point for determining the future of the Palestinian cause", reflects a concern for protecting one of the most dangerous issues that the colonizer and their allies are trying to liquidate; hence, Dr. Jarbaoui’s article calls for the necessity of establishing a clear and specific Palestinian position, which can unify the Palestinian geographical and political map; however, the question that imposes itself is: how can we unify the position in a few days, when countless reconciliation meetings have been held without yielding results? And what can unify a geography whose political leadership has not yet unified? The most important question, as articulated by the wounded, is whether this leadership realizes the true meaning of unity; that is, unity of the human, the concern, and the destiny, rather than mere unity on paper or in speeches?

If we go a little further, we will find that discussing "ending the war" is inseparable from the question: Have those who speak in negotiation halls tried to experience hunger as people do? Have they truly considered others as our late poet Mahmoud Darwish advised us? How will a child who has been hungry for months become convinced that his leadership has thought about him, or a mother who has witnessed her son die in her hands, that there is someone who felt her pain? Is it enough to raise our prayers against the enemy and repeat "Allah is sufficient for us and He is the best disposer of affairs" without taking action? Didn’t Allah command us: "And say, 'Work, and Allah will see your work'"?

What is required, before the question of governance, is to answer the question of awareness, that the conflict, in essence, is not related to this geographical spot or that, but to determining the meaning of genocide in the International Court of Justice, and terrorism in the United Nations, and the legitimacy of existence from a human and moral perspective; only in this way can we establish ourselves as a group belonging to the human community, to apply what is known as the right to self-determination. For Israel and its supporters are trying to impose their agenda based on erasing the right of resistance from the lexicon of international law specifically in the Middle Eastern context, and even on the omission of law itself, while Palestinians and all the free people of the world behind and before them, seek to assert that rights are not erased by force, and memory is not erased by barbarity, and no proposed settlement process, whether in the East or elsewhere, can succeed unless each party recognizes the other's right to exist, and this recognition will define its meaning, answering the question of who will rule meaning, not who will rule Gaza.