As the third anniversary of the events of October 7, 2023, passed a few days ago, the question that disappeared amid the noise of those early days returns: Where do we go with the Palestinian cause?
Since that day, the Middle East has witnessed some of its most severe political, economic, and humanitarian crises. I fear that what we have seen may merely be a prelude to something even worse if the conflict continues to be managed with the same mindset.
In this space, a few months after the event, I wrote an article titled “Gaza: Judged by Its Outcome” in February 2024, warning of the scale of the disaster to come. That was not fortune-telling, but rather a reading of the balance of power and the way the other side thinks. The results have come close to what I feared, and I find no satisfaction in that.
Palestine is the mother of all causes in the Middle East, and perhaps one of the most important issues of the modern world. It encompasses the rights of a people uprooted from their land, a deeply rooted religious and historical memory, settler colonialism, and international interests that have made a solution elusive from one generation to the next.
People across the region sympathize with the Palestinian cause for understandable reasons, and many beyond the region share that sentiment in rejection of the injustice inflicted upon Palestinians. Yet however broad that sympathy may be, it requires sound policy to translate it into tangible gains. It is here that the experience has repeatedly faltered, leaving Palestinians to pay not only the price of occupation but also the price of mistakes made by those who claim to speak in their name.
Two heavy obstacles stand in the way of a solution: the rigidity of the Israeli right and the absence of a decisive American commitment that would make the establishment of a Palestinian state an enforceable obligation. Important shifts are taking place in Europe, some of which have gone beyond rhetoric to recognize Palestine.
Saudi Arabia, together with Arab and European partners, is also working to revive the two-state solution. Yet settlement expansion and the fragmentation of Palestinian land continue to push its implementation further out of reach. The closure of the political horizon provides extremists with new opportunities while also giving regional powers seeking influence a ready-made cause through which to expand their reach.
We have known this pattern of exploitation for decades. The Palestinian Nakba was one of the factors that paved the way for the rise of military rule. Later, the Palestinian cause became a source of legitimacy for regimes that promised liberation and demanded silence from their peoples while they waited for the decisive battle.
Large segments of the public believed those promises. The wound was real, and the hope for liberation was immense. Years passed, freedoms shrank, development receded, and the land remained occupied, with the occupation in fact expanding. Palestine was not responsible for the failures of those regimes, but its name was used to shield those failures from accountability and to defer people's demands for a dignified life and for scientifically grounded approaches to confronting the crisis.
Then came revolutionary Iran with a religious-sectarian discourse. It found in the Palestinian cause an entry point into Arab societies and a means of building influence beyond its borders. Its task was made easier by understandable Palestinian frustration, though that frustration does not necessarily make the resulting choices correct.
Some Palestinian factions aligned themselves with military and Baathist regimes; others wagered on the Iranian project and distanced themselves from the Arab states of moderation. These factions blurred the distinction between those genuinely seeking a settlement that would restore Palestinian land and those who needed the conflict to continue in order to preserve their own role. Mistakes accumulated, and ordinary Palestinians bore a far greater share of the losses than those making the decisions.
The exploitation of Palestinian suffering also extended to the rhetoric of the Houthis, al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other extremist groups. It would be inaccurate to reduce the origins of these organizations solely to Palestine, but the cause featured prominently in their propaganda and recruitment efforts. What was largely absent, however, was any accounting of the consequences.
At the same time, the Zionist movement built institutions, forged alliances, invested in knowledge, and organized interests, while also employing violence and displacement. This does not grant it any right to another people's land, but it does help explain part of the imbalance in the confrontation.
Palestinians have paid the price through death, displacement, destruction, and long years behind bars. None of this reassessment absolves Israel of responsibility for the occupation and its crimes; that responsibility is clear. The point is rather that the justness of a cause does not render its leaders immune from error, and that acknowledging mistakes is a prerequisite for correcting them, especially when the cost is measured in the lives and futures of entire generations.
I believe the reassessment should begin with a simple question: What did each political choice add to the Palestinian people's ability to remain on their land and secure their rights? Palestinian thinkers have raised courageous questions about strategies, alliances, and the cost of adventurism, only to face accusations of betrayal and marginalization. No successful political strategy can be built if criticizing decisions is treated as an attack on the cause itself.
People who have borne the losses have every right to question their leaders and to distinguish between sacrifices imposed upon them and risks undertaken without their participation. Such a reassessment also requires repairing the Palestinian political house, renewing the legitimacy of its institutions, unifying decision-making, and presenting a program capable of speaking to the world in the language of its interests and concerns.
International recognitions of Palestine need sustained legal and diplomatic follow-up, as well as pressure to halt settlement expansion, protect civilians, and facilitate reconstruction. These are difficult tasks, but their results are measurable.
It is not enough to win the sympathy of a European street only to squander its impact through rhetoric that conflates all Jews with the policies of Israel, or through blind acts that give opponents an opportunity to distort the Palestinian cause. That is a political and moral responsibility that cannot be evaded.
Today, two paths lie before us. One is the effort led by Saudi Arabia, together with Arab and European states, to open a path toward a Palestinian state. The other prolongs the conflict and benefits powers that expand their influence under the banner of saving Palestine.
The success of the first path requires unified Palestinian support and pressure on Washington to assume its responsibility. The alternative, which has been tried for far too long, leaves Palestinians facing mounting losses while its patrons negotiate their own interests. Continuing down the same road could make what lies ahead worse than even the most pessimistic among us expect.
The mother of all causes deserves a discussion free from posturing and grandstanding, and action that realistically assesses capabilities while safeguarding human lives. Palestinians deserve both their land and their lives.
Final thought: In the world of politics, opportunities require leadership that combines courage with wisdom.
