1.    Palestinian national identity is strong and a source of great pride and resilience for our people. We are a people rooted in the land and must always remember and affirm that we are the indigenous people of this land and its owners for thousands of years.

2.    Despite these facts, at the onset of the 20th century, the Zionist movement succeeded in imposing the concept of establishment a Jewish national home in Palestine on the international community, represented by the League of Nations, culminating with its endorsement of the British Mandate, which incorporated the 1917 Balfour Declaration.

3.    This was followed, in the late post-WWII 1940s, by the United Nations adopting the idea of partitioning Palestine into two states with an economic union between them and a special international regime for Jerusalem. On the basis of the UN General Assembly resolution 181 (II), the “Partition resolution”, Israel was declared in 1948 and the Arab-Israeli war erupted, with Israel seizing and occupying half the lands allotted by resolution 181 for the Arab state. Thus, Israel committed its first illegal annexation, and about a year later Israel began the process of annexing Jerusalem, West first, in further violation of UN resolutions 181(II) and 194 (III).

4.    Since the 1948 Nakba, when our national entity was overtaken and almost half of the Palestinian people were uprooted from their lands and homes, our people have been forcibly and cruelly deprived of their right to self-determination and national independence in their natural state.

5.    Following the 1967 war, Israel occupied what remained of historic Palestine, and immediately began colonizing the land, seeking to complete its annexation of Jerusalem and using the same means and tactics that it used in Palestine during the 1920s and 1930s, and in the 1940s in what became Israel, only this time in grave violation of the international laws developed post-WWII.

6.    The Palestinian Declaration of Independence in 1988 was based on the innate, historic right of the Palestinian people, and on international legitimacy, specifically resolution 181, as the legal basis for the State of Palestine and, in practical terms, the political program endorsed by the Palestine National Council (PNC) accepted Security Council resolution 242 and the 1967 borders as defining the borders of the state. This emerged in response to the global position regarding the 1967 territories: that it is Palestinian land, that it is occupied by Israel, that Israel should not colonize it, and that an independent Palestinian state must exist side by side with the State of Israel. The majority of the countries of the world responded to the 1988 Declaration by recognizing the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders, despite it being under Israeli occupation.

7.    Despite the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991 and the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, the peace process repeatedly faltered, undermined by the destructive policies and actions of the Israeli right and extremists who worked to reverse Oslo Accords, accelerating settler colonialism and imposing siege conditions by which Israel continues to control all aspects of Palestinian life, nullifying the meaning and practice of autonomy and deterring a political settlement and Palestinian national independence in our state.

8.    Israel’s illegal plans have found their culmination in the Trump “Vision”, which is based on the premise that the entirety of the land is Israeli – the notion of greater Israel, which denies, ipso facto, Palestinian national existence and rights, and attempts to find “solutions” for the “Palestinian inhabitants” in a scattered entity that they may call a state, but only if they meet numerous additional and impossible conditions. The “Vision,” of course, attempts to legitimize Israeli settlements and proposes annexation by Israel of about 30% of the West Bank.

9.    Following the plan’s release, Israel’s Prime Minister escalated the threats and preparations to annex Palestinian territory, with of course as few Palestinian inhabitants as possible, thus the continued demolition of Palestinian homes and forced transfer of population. In fact, this would be Israel’s fourth annexation, following annexation of half the lands allocated for the Arab State in the UN Partition Plan, the annexation of Jerusalem in various stages, and the Syrian Golan. The goal of the ruling Israeli right-wing, supported by a broader segment of Israelis, is clear: to seize most or all of the land and consolidate the “Jewish nature” of the state. Israel therefore continues its attempts to seize the entirety of the land rather than divide it into two state, thereby nullifying the objective of a peaceful, negotiated settlement.

10.    This plan has been rightly and absolutely rejected by the Palestinian people and leadership and by the international community. Confronting this threat is the main task now before the Palestinian people and national movement, essential to achieving the Palestinian national goal. As such, the only logical national strategy is to preserve our national identity, national rights and national state, and to defend the land against settler colonialism. We must uphold the existing State of Palestine, which remains under occupation, and defend its land against settlements and settlers, and demand the rights and lands of Palestine refugees – with or without a negotiated settlement. These are our rights.

11.    Palestinian identity, nationhood, and rights should not be questioned and must be preserved and upheld in spite of the many challenges we face.  We should not allow for a narrative that our identity, nationhood and rights can be “destroyed by Israel”; they are abiding.

12.    We must reject and rectify the misperception that a political settlement is what will ‘give’ the Palestinian people a state, and that Israel will be the one to ‘grant’ us this state. Such thinking contradicts everything: history, facts, law and reality and must cease to be appeased. As with our right to self-determination, the existence of our state is not contingent on the peace process. It is an innate, historic right of the Palestinian people that can neither be vetoed nor negated by Israel.

13.    Ironically, Trump's “Vision” and the annexation threat provide an opportunity to end the impasse: it will be universally acknowledged that any Israeli annexation would constitute an end to a negotiated settlement – an end to the current peace process – but not an end to the internationally-supported goal and right of Palestinian independence. This is fundamental: our state’s existence is not subject to negotiation and its source of legitimacy is the Palestinian people, not Israel.

14.    Another mistake that must be corrected has been the underestimation of settler colonialism’s impact. Settler colonialism is a war crime under international law. And, not only does it contradict the peace process and a negotiated solution, it contradicts Palestinian existence and aims to replace our people with Israeli settlers. For us, this is a matter of life or death.

15.    There should be no acceptance of, or capitulation to, this crime against our people. A whole system of international laws prohibit settler colonialism and empower the Palestinian side to confront and defeat it as a prelude to ending the occupation and achieving the national independence of the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital.

16.    Pursuit by the Palestinian people and leadership of such a strategy does not depart from international legitimacy, it actually adheres to it. It is not a rejection of a negotiated settlement, but rather demands that negotiations be on a clear and legitimate basis and with a specific goal, not continuation of the futility we have endured for many years.

17.    In this regard, as Israeli violations and bad faith have repeatedly undermined negotiations, the term “two-state solution” has become synonymous with a failed peace process and the misperception that a Palestinian state must be negotiated and accepted by Israel. This has created intense toxicity on the matter in the Palestinian arena in particular. This must be rectified. Our right to self-determination and independence are not contingent on a peace agreement.
 
18.    Our national goal is thus achieving liberty and national independence in the State of Palestine on the pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital; our goal is not the “peace process” and we should not be pressured to present “an alternative plan”. Our position is consistent with the international consensus on partition into two States, but not in the traditional sense that the two-State solution has come to be misunderstood as requiring Israeli ‘approval’ through negotiations. 

19.    Some Palestinian groups call for liberating all of Palestine – replacing the Zionist entity with a democratic structure. Despite the logic of this proposition, the possibility to achieve it is very difficult, let alone the enormous losses this would precipitate in the support of the international community and positions of influential states. It seems logical then, even for proponents of this proposal, to align with the central goal of national independence in the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders, and then let destiny run its course.

20.    Clearly, the main difference between this central goal of independence versus the goal of liberating historic Palestine is the overwhelming international support for the national goal and not only the absence of support for the latter, but even serious hostility toward it. The significance of international law and the global consensus must not be underestimated, not least because of the protection afforded to Palestinian rights and the obstacles posed to Israeli plans. 

21.    Realistically speaking, there is no such thing as a “one-state solution” – one state can only be established when one of the two sides completely wins and the other is vanquished and subjugated. If the Palestinian side wins, it will be possible for it to establish a democratic state in all of Palestine, and if the Israeli side wins, it will be possible for it to establish a ‘Jewish state’ in all of Mandate Palestine. In both scenarios, there is no “solution” and not even a negotiated “compromise” is possible.

22.    There are some who call for one state, but in a vague way, and even they acknowledge it will take many years, perhaps decades. But, a further clarification must be made. This idea of one state is very different from liberating all of Palestine; it basically means giving up on our national identity and rights and seeking instead to be granted rights within the State of Israel. This proposition, intentionally or not, enables Israel to establish “Greater Israel”. This would actually mean Palestinian surrender in exchange for some individual rights that we all know will be obstructed from transpiring.

23.    In reality, the only immediate, concrete effect of this position is elimination of the 1967 line and “legitimization” of settlements and settlers in the territory of the State of Palestine – a primary goal and pillar of Israeli policies over decades. An Israeli extremist could not ask for more: the Palestinians giving up their national rights and playing a role in legitimizing settler colonialism! That same extremist Israeli knows those rights will be forcibly blocked, and the likely probability is the continued gradual expulsion of more Palestinians from this land for the benefit of the Jewish state.

24.    Some stakeholders, including Israelis, suggest a similar argument – that any annexation destroys the two-state solution. What does this mean? Does “destruction of the two-state solution” mean destroying Palestine and destroying Israel? Of course not. To them it only means destroying Palestine. This is exactly why it must be rejected. Annexation abrogates the “negotiated settlement”, but it cannot expunge the national state of the Palestinian people because the rights of a people cannot be negated as long as the people are steadfast in upholding them. 

25.    This narrative – that annexation destroys the two-state solution – reinforces theories that what Israel is doing becomes an irreversible reality or a fate that must be accepted and coexisted with. Why? The Palestinian people insist that every illegal Israeli measure is null and void and must be reversed, as was always the case with other colonizers in history. Palestine’s case is no exception.

26.    Some “friends” call for the two-state solution, but only if Israel “gives” or “agrees to” the Palestinian state “through negotiations.” This position wrongly conflates negotiating solutions for final status issues with the inherent right to self-determination and independence of our state.

27.    Other “friends” declare that the solution is one-state – without defining or clarifying any specific and real rights for the Palestinian people. Would it be a binational one-state with equal rights for all citizens? Of course, this could not happen – neither now nor in the foreseeable future, and Trump's Vision has clearly proven that this would be rejected by Israel. Consider the reality of the 3rd class status of Palestinian citizens of Israel after over 72 years, and the racist, offensive “Nation State Law” that proclaims self-determination in this land only for the Jewish people.

28.    Neither of these positions challenges the Israeli narrative, but accept it in practice! Neither challenges Israel’s actions, especially in regard to its settler colonial project, which is rather deemed de facto in each of these paradigms. These two positions must thus be firmly rejected by our people.

29.    For the State of Palestine, the solution is to end the occupation, defeat settler colonialism and ensure the departure of settlers from our country, just like the colonizers who preceded them in other countries, and the exercise of self-determination and national independence. 

30.    It is even more startling when these friends try to convince Palestinians that the world’s concept of “state sovereignty” has changed, that there is no need or justification for Palestinian insistence on exercising sovereignty in their “own state”. And worse, perhaps even try to convince us that the right to self-determination is an outdated concept. This is an insult to our patriotism and national rights, as for all peoples of the world.

31.    Ironically, Trump’s ‘Vision’ on this topic reinforces this pillar. The ‘Vision’ states: “Self-determination is the hallmark of a nation. This Vision is intended to maximize self-determination while taking all relevant factors into account.” The conditionality is ludicrous, but the emphasis on self-determination “as the hallmark of a nation” inadvertently affirms that the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination is a real and realistic right that cannot be denied, avoided, or abandoned.

32.    Finally, some claim that Palestinians, especially youth, have shifted from support for two states to one state. The deception here is twofold. First, in the confusion between their feelings and views about the current peace process and ceaseless negotiations on the one hand, and their feelings and views about national identity, statehood and patriotism on the other hand. Many have lost confidence in a political settlement and the peace process, but they have certainly not changed their position on the existence of the Palestinian state and Palestinian national rights. Secondly, while one state appears to be about a democratic state with equal rights for all, a goal that is both noble and moral, the problem is that it is not achievable given Israel’s intransigence on this issue – wanting it all, a “purely Jewish State” – and also the international position, which insists there is no alternative to two States in this land.

33.    Faced with these realities, we, the Palestinian people, must steadfastly uphold our national identity, our national rights and our national state, and insist on an end to the occupation and defeat of settler colonialism. We must affirm that our national goal is to achieve self-determination and national independence in the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital, along with restoring the rights of Palestine refugees, including their right to return, ownership and compensation. We must always and clearly affirm: Palestine was, is and always will be.