Creativity in Critical Theory and Deficiency in Practical Management?

I do not care much about the social media enthusiasts among Arabs and Palestinians who insult the Palestinian people, their national movement, and their leadership because the goal and cost of these individuals are known. However, I take note of the observations and critiques voiced by distinguished intellectual, academic, and national figures. Not because I agree with everything they say, but because the Palestinian political system truly needs serious reform, and one cannot bet that the continuation of the status quo will lead to spontaneous reform, or that the impasse and failure of Hamas's project mean the success of Fatah and the organization’s project. We have written extensively on the subject and have exercised our critique to the extent that it has provoked some leaders of Fatah and the organization.

Among the flood of criticisms directed recently at the authority, the organization, and Fatah, I will focus on the controversy raised by Palestinian thinker Rashid Khalidi's critique of the authority and the Palestinian political system. This reminds us of what happened with Edward Said when he criticized the Oslo Accords, and many similar cases even within the national context and Fatah movement, such as the thinkers Khaled Hassan and leader Farouk Qaddumi (Abu al-Lutuf), may God have mercy on them, and many other prominent figures who opposed the organization, its approach, the authority, and its behavior.

This old/new controversy, after it has been engaged in by intellectuals and writers from both within and outside the political class, has become a broader topic that transcends ordinary political disagreements, which we have grown accustomed to and which fall under the context of freedom of opinion and expression or are imposed by the geography of the Palestinian diaspora. It extends to a crisis affecting national identity and culture, casting doubt on our national struggle history. It also brings to the fore the relationship between distinguished and superior creators in all academic and scientific fields, as well as in finance and investments globally, with the leadership and the political system. What exists is an aversion and a near-break between these competencies and elites, whether within Palestine or outside it, with the official political system.

We ask: Why does the political mind of these elites, especially those opposing the official political system, predominantly exhibit critical and analytical characteristics but lack creative practical solutions to the issues they diagnose, which could help extricate the national issue from its impasse?

For example, is Rashid Khalidi’s position, and that of others whose commitment to national interests is unquestionable and who oppose the authority and leadership and the Oslo Accords, based on their opposition to the principle of a political settlement with Israel? Or do they support it but oppose President Abu Mazen and the leadership for how they manage the settlement process and the authority’s affairs?

If their stances oppose the path of a political settlement, is their alternative armed resistance? If they mean the principle of resisting occupation, we agree with them on the principle and right to resist occupation, but how? And when? And within what strategy, and in the frame of what alliances? Or do they agree with the resistance as practiced by Hamas and the resistance factions in the Gaza Strip? We have seen the results of this resistance in Gaza and even in the West Bank, as well as the official Arab, regional, and international stances that mainly oppose armed resistance movements in Palestine?

If Rashid Khalidi and all those who criticize the authority and leadership, and we also criticize them and do not absolve them of responsibility for what has transpired, what is the alternative to the authority and its leadership? Does merely calling for general elections resolve the issue?

We previously wrote an article in January 2016 titled: (Yes to the dissolution of the authority, but what is the alternative?) In which we proposed revitalizing the PLO to fill the void of the authority's absence in the event of its dissolution for any reason. We repeated the idea recently after repeated statements from the Zionist right during the genocide war about ending the presence of the Palestinian Authority, and we were optimistic when the president issued his decree in July for holding elections for the Palestinian National Council at the end of this year. However, hopes quickly faded after a statement from the presidency of the National Council that set conditions and limits for the elections, rendering them almost impossible at present.

If the solution is to go for general elections at all levels in the organization and authority, a demand of almost all the people, is the decision of elections in the hands of the Palestinians? Or is it a decision also made by Israelis and regional powers? And in the case of excluding elections, what alternative does thinker Khalidi and all opponents of the PLO, the authority, and the leadership propose?

Some excessively simplify matters by calling for national unity. While no one is against national unity, as it is a demand of all people, what do we mean by national unity, this ambiguous and evasive term? Who is hindering its realization? Is it the people? Are they the critics of the parties and the political class? Or are they the parties and their leadership? Or are there external obstacles, challenges, and resistances that prevent its realization?

We have previously written extensively that the flaw is not in the idea of peace and the search for a political settlement, but rather the flaw lies in the absence of national consensus and a national strategy regarding the settlement. Not everyone who thought about a political settlement is a traitor to the homeland. This does not mean we support the way the leadership and political class deal with the settlement process and how they manage the internal Palestinian affairs.

We also wrote that the flaw is not in the principle of resisting occupation but in the absence of a national strategy for resistance and how Hamas practices it. It is not permissible to accuse everyone who resists occupation of serving a foreign agenda or being part of Iran’s group, nor to accuse everyone who criticizes Hamas of being against resistance or working as collaborators with the occupation.

So why do Palestinians fail to reach consensus on a national strategy to achieve even the minimum of their national rights? Is it a lack of political thinking when there are thousands of thinkers and academics spread in universities and research centers around the world? Or is it ignorance in operational management and dealing with reality? Or is it the result of external interventions in their internal affairs, which can only be a consequence of internal failures? Or is it the ruling political class's loss of faith in the justice of the cause and its lack of trust in the people?