President Abu Mazen Mahmoud Abbas and the “Weak Strategy”

By  Ibrāhīm Ibrāsh

Translated by Khaled Ghannam

Through my observation of President Abu Mazen’s writings and statements, his handling of the positions he has held, and my limited personal knowledge of him both before and after his assumption of the presidency, it can be said that his thinking and strategic political approach belong to a school and approach in politics, namely the “strategy of the weak.”Although this school belongs to political realism, it proceeds from a premise that is contrary to the original principles of realism, which relies on force and the balance of power to achieve national interests.

The strategy of the weak is exemplified by independent countries that are stable in their relations with other countries, especially neighboring countries. This is the case with countries that adopted a position of neutrality during World War II, some of which remain committed to neutrality, such as Switzerland and Austria. We also find its application in the case of peoples and countries subject to colonialism, and its model is the experience of India’s liberation under Mahatma Gandhi (the policy of non-violence) during its colonization by Britain.

This school of politics stems from recognizing the reality of the imbalance of power in favor of the enemy, the sense of helplessness toward him, and the inability to confront him militarily. Therefore, it is best to avoid any direct armed confrontations with him, and to admit that you are weak and in need of external protection from friends or the international community. (Abu Mazen’s words in his speech at the United Nations two years ago, when he addressed the nations of the world, “Protect us,” were an expression of this strategy.)

This strategy also does not pay much attention to populist discourse and the people’s own capabilities. The leader who believes in this strategy, even if he is patriotic and seeks the interests of the people, often has a gap between him and the popular parties, and these are also not to be relied upon much.

What is criticized about this strategy or approach of President Abu Mazen and his successor is: – the lack of national consensus on this policy, and the absence of executive tools, especially since it requires men who believe in it and are capable of convincing the people of the truth, and possess the tools to strengthen the people’s steadfastness on the ground, and to innovate non-violent means of struggle to confront the settlement and Zionist propaganda about Judaization schemes?

All of this requires the return of trust between the people and the leadership, national unity, a democratic approach in the leadership, agreement on a national strategy for peaceful resistance, and strengthening and correcting the relationship between the leadership and the people with the Arab and international surroundings, so that they constitute an objective equivalent to the weakness of military capabilities.

If the direct military confrontations with the enemy, as happened in the Hamas Al-Aqsa Flood operation and what it led to in terms of activating the Zionist war of extermination and ethnic cleansing in the Gaza Strip, which was prepared in advance, have inflicted great damage on the Palestinian cause, especially since they came under unfavorable Arab and international circumstances.

On the other hand, the strategy of the weak, which is being pursued by the leadership and the Palestinian Authority, although it has relatively preserved the steadfastness of the people on the ground and reduced their losses, has not achieved its national goal and has not prevented the enemy from increasing its settlement projects, Judaizing Al-Aqsa Mosque, dismembering the West Bank, and attacking citizens.

Unfortunately, the Palestinian people are still divided between these two strategies.

With the increasing voices calling for a halt to direct military action, even temporarily, to stop the massacres in the Gaza Strip and prevent the implementation of a plan to displace the people of the Gaza Strip and perhaps also the West Bank, even the Hamas faction, when it calls for a long truce without achieving the goal of liberating Palestine, is in fact acknowledging the failure of the approach of fighting and direct military resistance.

After all that has happened, is it worthwhile to return to the strategy of the weak or to combine it with a national strategy of resistance?

It is useful to remember that during the era of leader Abu Ammar and after the failure of the Camp David II talks in 2000, two approaches appeared in the Palestinian arena and within the Fatah movement: (Arafatism) and (Abbasism). We wrote about the subject at the time.

The Arafatists sought to return to armed struggle while maintaining power, pursuing a political settlement approach, and not closing the door to negotiations. In other words, they sought to achieve peace through military pressure. The Abbasids opposed a return to military action and supported the strategy of the weak. Hamas and other factions supported Arafat’s return to military action, but at the same time, they were hostile to the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Palestinian Authority, and the political settlement.

The result was the siege of Abu Ammar in the Muqata’a, (Palestinian Presidency Headquarters) the siege of Arafatism, and his political assassination before “Israel” assassinated him physically in 2004. Is it possible now to return to the strategy of the weak, even if modified?

This strategy may have been useful and could have achieved some national political gains at the beginning of the political settlement process, when there was a society and government in Israel that sought a political settlement, the peace camp was strong, the countries of the world supported a peaceful solution and the rational approach of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the Arab world was in a much better state than it is now.

But now, under the most extreme right-wing government in the history of the occupying state, and the entire enemy society turning to the right, and Israel declaring that it is against peace and against the establishment of a Palestinian state, and is even waging a war of extermination and ethnic cleansing in the Gaza Strip.

Can the “weak strategy” succeed? Is there an alternative? This strategy alone cannot be relied upon to achieve victory or completely prevent the enemy’s plans.

We do not believe that we are now at a stage that allows for the liberation of Palestine, even within the 1967 borders. Rather, we are at a stage of preserving national identity and strengthening the steadfastness of the people on their land. However, we can minimize losses, preserve the people’s existence and steadfastness, and prevent the enemy from providing further justification for continuing to liquidate the national cause.

Read origin article in arabic https://arabmadarat.net/?p=108969