Abbas' subjugation at the UN General Assembly

Mahmoud Abbas' speech to the United Nations General Assembly ended the rife speculation over the past weeks about a possible announcement of the dissolution of the Oslo Accords.

At best, the speech could be described as a culmination of the incessant fluctuating threats which Abbas lashes out and withdraws again according to circumstances.

Prior to his speech, Abbas met US Secretary of State John Kerry who, it was reported, insisted that the UNGA speech not include ultimatums to Israel. It is unlikely that Abbas would have departed from his usual conformity to deliver any so-called bombshell at an international platform.

However, it is clear that the outcome of the UN General Assembly, while providing a source of annoyance to Israel, has not even dented the impunity that Israel enjoys at an international level.

Two particular issues stand out which are of detrimental significance to Palestinians, and which should be considered when analysing Abbas' speech.

The hoisting of the Palestinian flag at the UN was hailed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon as a sign of "hope".

It must be remembered that even when submitting the resolution requesting the display of Palestine's flag, the PA representation at the UN managed to dilute its significance by embroiling the Vatican in its request - a move that was rejected by the Holy See.

Secondly, world leaders have used the international platform to secure Israel's existence diplomatically, by humiliating Palestinians into acquiescing to the two-state compromise.

Palestinian leaders have allowed the land and its people to become obscured by futile symbolism attained through flag displays

Anti-colonial struggle was predictably eliminated as an option, thus allowing international leaders to express feigned support for Palestine while asserting Israel's right to exist.

These two issues clearly depict the quagmire which against which Palestinians find themselves struggling. Palestinian leaders have allowed the land and its people to become obscured by futile symbolism attained through flag displays, while on a diplomatic level, leaders fail to articulate the Palestinian right to struggle against colonial domination.

Just as the international community has perfected its tactics to ensure that Palestinians remain within the clutches of dependency, so has Abbas excelled in his grovelling to the UN, as evidenced in his regurgitation of cliche.

The pleading commenced almost instantly, with Abbas declaring Palestinians placing "their hopes on the countries of this organisation to help them gain their freedom, independence and sovereignty".

The distorted premise sets the stage for a deluge of rhetoric that articulates Palestinian history from within the UN narrative, prioritising the two-state paradigm while attempting to question Israel's impunity. As with all of Abbas' speeches, the contradictions are vivid.

"Is it not time to end the racist, terrorist, colonial settlement of our land, which is destroying the two-state solution?" asked Abbas.

The two-state compromise is a colonial endeavour - a farcical idea of a solution that could only be conjured by entities who have interests in seeing that the expansion programme is completed.

Furthermore, Abbas' insistence upon the two-state compromise restricts Palestinians to a hypothetical state upon fragmented territory, while Israel retains its ambiguous borders - given that all demands to implement such a historical injustice are placed upon the Palestinians, not on Israel's complicit settler population.

References to ending the Oslo Accords were vague, as Abbas did not emphatically call for the dissolution of the agreements.

Rather, it remains open to interpretation and subject to existing frameworks - such as security coordination with Israel and the dismantling of the PA - which Abbas is loathe to end. Such a move wouyld require the complete abandonment of the two-state fallacy.

Endless references to "the occupation" - the term preferred by the international community as it detracts from the wider historical complicity that is Zionist settler-colonisation in Palestine - have clearly undermined Abbas' speech and dissolved any substance the address might have had. 

The PA's adherence to such imperialist designations upon Palestine has ensured that any space allowed by the international community for imparting a stance is instead suffocated by the constant submissive attitude which resorts to pleas, rather than assertive demands.

How can Abbas declare the PA is calling for peace and justice when its existence depends upon the injustice inscribed within the two-state compromise?

The PA has inscribed a perpetual laceration in Palestinian history - one that, so far, has not been properly challenged, not even by Palestinian resistance factions.

While armed Palestinian groups have voiced their disagreements with Abbas' speech - and pointed out its inconsistencies, in particular the unabashed subjugation to Israel, the US and international organisations, little has been offered in terms of political alternatives.

While armed Palestinian groups have voiced their disagreements... little has been offered in terms of political alternatives

It is rather unfortunate that Palestinian resistance factions thrive in spasms, mainly when Israel carries out a premeditated colonial massacre that necessitates international attention.

If the consistency exhibited by armed Palestinian groups is maintained also during periods when international scrutiny, despite ongoing violations, dwindles to nothing, Palestinians could have an alternative to Abbas and his clan.

However, as can been seen from statements pertaining to Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a common term - the reference to "occupation" - remains ingrained.

While it is indeed excessive to demand that Abbas refers to "settler-colonisation" instead of "occupation" to avoid obscurity, it is indeed a pity that resistance factions, whose rhetoric mainly consists of liberation, should fall within the same restrictive parameters as dictated by the international community.

Ramona Wadi is an independent researcher, freelance journalist, book reviewer and blogger specialising in the struggle for memory in Chile and Palestine, colonial violence and the manipulation of international law.

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of al-Araby al-Jadeed, its editorial board or staff.