The modern/colonial Westphalian state is not going to save the Palestinian people, nor has it historically saved those who belong to the so-called postcolonial world that quickly reconfigured itself according to neocolonial logics under the guise of independence.
Frantz Fanon wrote about the neocolonial consequences of hasty decolonization in the 1950s. European colonial powers quickly shifted their positions toward independence as long as they could control the outcome. In one of his pieces for El Moudjahid (1958), Fanon examined the neocolonial reconfiguration after political independence. He admonished ongoing anticolonial struggles of his day to not confuse independence with liberation. He warned us to “know that the political independence that they [anticolonial movements] will wring from the enemy in exchange for the maintenance of an economic dependency is only a snare and a delusion”. The unfinished project of decolonization is, as Fanon put it, “bound to be hard and waged with iron determination” if we’re to create a world where total liberation no longer dwells in the realm of dreams and aspirations of dominated peoples but instead becomes part of their everyday existence. Fanon understood that the second phase of decolonization would not make the same mistake as the first phase’s nominal political sovereignty that reconstituted itself as political-economic, cultural, and epistemic dependency.
Echoing this call, Ghassan Kanafani wrote about the Specter of the Palestinian State, distinguishing between three types of States:
There are three types of “Palestinian State” an observer can distinguish:
Type I is a “state” formed of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and instigated, overseen and dominated by Israel. It would, in effect, be part of the complete surrender to an Israeli military victory—and one of many fruits of such a victory. This state’s purpose would be to develop the victor’s military, political and economic superiority, and to engender a profound advance towards its strategic objectives.
Type II is a “state” created in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the East Bank (Jordan east of the river). This would be established through the overthrow of the existing regime in Amman, under the pretext that such a coup fulfills the popular wishes of the Palestinian-Jordanian population. The coup could only take place with the blessing and encouragement of Israel, the United States and Britain. Its actual purpose would be to fundamentally eliminate the Palestinian revolutionary liberation movement, bringing it entirely under the control—possibly through a military bureaucracy—of the Israeli imperialist coalition.
Type III is a “state” imposed by the will of the Palestinian and Arab armed struggle, whether on liberated lands in the West Bank or elsewhere. This scenario is effectively impossible to achieve in the foreseeable future, unless there is a dramatic shift in the balance of military and political power in relation to both the Israeli enemy and the reactionary imperialist enemy. The authority that develops on those liberated lands does not need to take the form of a “state” in the sense usually associated with that term. The fundamental basis for its existence, would be to actualize a staging and launching point for further liberatory action using the force of arms, the continuity of the struggle, and the overturning of the current imbalanace of power. The purpose of such a state would be to escalate the revolution, to move it to a more advanced stage.
There’s no doubt that the West seeks to “eliminate the Palestinian revolutionary liberation movement” with its symbolic recognition of the State of Palestine. It leaves Israel’s genocidal settler colonial project intact and absolves the West from its participation in the annihilation of the Palestinian people. This recognition seeks to hold together, or perhaps restore, whatever is left of the West’s eroded and fractured liberal and democratic façade. But we’ve reached a point of no return. It’s too late for the West to absolve itself from yet another genocide, to ask for forgiveness, to recognize a State when in actuality it participates in the extermination of the people whose desire isn’t nominal sovereignty but the total liberation of Palestine, a State that’s not an end but a means to “escalate the revolution” on a global scale, as Kanafani’s internationalism reminded us. Palestine here becomes a paradigm for the liberation of all peoples. This is what the modern/colonial world order fears most and we thus must understand liberal recognition against this paradigmatic shift the Palestinian resistance has given to the world without ever asking for anything in return, yet has nonetheless crystalized the sentiment in the hearts and minds of millions arounds the world who, through thought action, know that “we are all Palestinians” and that what is happening in Gaza is indeed a rehearsal of the future, as Colombian President Gustavo Petro stated. It is what awaits us all if we don’t act militantly to stop this genocidal rehearsal.
Recently, several Substack posts have written about the recognition of the Palestinain State, referring to the West’s recognition as a counterinsurgent mechanism aimed at permanently ending armed resistance, whereby Palestine is reduced “to a reservation where the colonized surrender liberation for the right to administer their own subjugation.” One of the conditions European countries are placing on this liberal recognition is, unsurprisingly, disarm the Palestinian resistance, the only military and political forces fighting for the “total liberation” of Palestine, the only force slowing down, at the very least, Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The aim is to create a Type I and/or Type II State that will function as “a colonial protectorate designed to contain the Palestinian struggle for liberation while serving colonial interests.” This “two-state solution” would result in more than political-economic dependency. This dependent Palestinian State, neighboring an ethnonationalist Zionist settler colonial state that will stop at nothing to annihilate the existence of Palestine and all memory of it, will continue to systematically displace, torture, and kill Palestinians, this time with the assistance of illegitimate Palestinian authorities. With the UK, France, and Canada officially recognizing the State of Palestine at the United Nations, Tami Alami rightfully argues that state recognition is nothing more than “an acceleration annihilation campaign.” Alami points to previous counterinsurgent efforts aimed at ending Palestinian resistance. The Oslo Accords, for instance, established the Palestinian Authority, a neocolonial entity intimately linked to the broader settler colonial and imperial project, that has, since its creation, been responsible for repressing Palestinian resistance while presenting itself as progress and independence. It is this same governance structure that European countries would like to impose on the Palestinian people.
The conflation of recognition with anticolonial reclamation and liberation of land, as Kanafani also pointed out, is a “deceptive ploy” the West has constantly used when faced with armed resistance, whereby compromise is sought at the expense of revolution. As Fanon1 also wrote, compromise is one of the most powerful tactics colonial powers use to give direction to anticolonial and liberation movements, co-opt their radical aims, and enlist the colonized in counterinsurgency.
It is therefore not surprising that today we’re seeing the liberal recognition of the Palestinian State. We must certainly pay attention to some of the implications these symbolic gestures may have for Israel but there is no reason to celebrate. We must continue to see recognition for what it is: counterinsurgency, a means to end Palestinian armed resistance and its struggle for total liberation, which can’t be reduced to the modern/colonial Westphalian nation-state. Palestinian liberation is not only for Palestinians. It’s a paradigm of resistance for the world. A gift so many of us are unwilling to receive, learn from, and enact in practice.
At the decisive moment, the colonialist bourgeoisie, which up till then has remained inactive, comes into the field. It introduces that new idea which is in proper parlance a creation of the colonial situation: non-violence. In its simplest form this non-violence signifies to the intellectual and economic elite of the colonized country that the bourgeoisie has the same interests as they and that it is therefore urgent and indispensable to come to terms for the public good. Non-violence is an attempt to settle the colonial problem around a green baize table, before any regrettable act has been performed or irreparable gesture made, before any blood has been shed. But if the masses, without waiting for the chairs to be arranged around the baize table, listen to their own voice and begin committing outrages and setting fire to buildings, the elite and the nationalist bourgeois parties will be seen rushing to the colonialists to exclaim, “This is very serious! We do not know how it will end; we must find a solution—some sort of compromise.” This idea of compromise is very important in the phenomenon of decolonization, for it is very far from being a simple one. Compromise involves the colonial system and the young nationalist bourgeoisie at one and the same time. The partisans of the colonial system discover that the masses may destroy everything. Blown-up bridges, ravaged farms, repressions, and fighting harshly disrupt the economy. Compromise is equally attractive to the nationalist bourgeoisie, who since they are not clearly aware of the possible consequences of the rising storm, are genuinely afraid of being swept away by this huge hurricane and never stop saying to the settlers: “We are still capable of stopping the slaughter; the masses still have confidence in us; act quickly if you do not want to put everything in jeopardy.” One step more, and the leader of the nationalist party keeps his distance with regard to that violence. He loudly proclaims that he has nothing to do with these Mau-Mau, these terrorists, these throat-slitters. At best, he shuts himself off in a no man’s land between the terrorists and the settlers and willingly offers his services as go-between; that is to say, that as the settlers cannot discuss terms with these Mau-Mau, he himself will be quite willing to begin negotiations. Thus it is that the rear guard of the national struggle, that very party of people who have never ceased to be on the other side in the fight, find themselves somersaulted into the van of negotiations and compromise—precisely because that party has taken very good care never to break contact with colonialism.
it is incredibly important that we have writers like you during such times ❤️