لحظة ادراك

 

Don’t Be More Catholic Than the Pope

Last night, the delegate of the Russian Federation, Orthodox in his religious identity, invoked a European proverb saying “Don’t be more Catholic than the Pope,” during his intervention following the adoption of Security Council Resolution 2803, which his country abstained from voting for. He used it to summarize the reason for not submitting their counter-proposal or using the veto to block the resolution. In other words, he wanted to say: We will not be stricter than the official representatives of the Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians who supported this resolution. He listed in his intervention the opportunities and risks contained in the resolution. The Chinese delegate followed the same path, as his country also abstained and did not use the veto.

The resolution passed with a majority of 13 votes, with no opposition, and became one of the United Nations documents under Chapter Six, not Chapter Seven as Israel wanted. The Algerian delegate was present, and although he took a position similar to Russia’s, he supported the resolution in commitment to the general Arab, Islamic, and Palestinian stance. The Israeli delegate was also present in the session; he was invited to attend but did not request to speak, listened carefully to everything said, and after the session ended, issued a press statement expressing his government’s support for the resolution. As for “the man with the pen” (the American delegate), in his two interventions—before and after the vote—he did not forget to attribute all of this to the occupant of the White House (the “peacemaker”). In political language, the message was: this is the best that can be achieved, and everyone must accept it. And when commenting on Hamas’s rejection of the resolution, he said this only confirms that they (the U.S.) are on the right track. But he would not dare comment on Ben Gvir’s rejection of the resolution even before it was presented to the Security Council, even though he is a minister in the far-right government.

Visual and written media will address the opportunities and challenges that have become present after the issuance of this resolution, but no one will bring anything new. All previous experiences, over a century, have proven with clear evidence the failure of all attempts to reach a satisfactory outcome, for a simple reason that sums up the entire situation: it is an existential conflict, where politics, religion, history, and ideology mix. A state established by an international political decision as a state for the Jews in Palestine—compensating them for what Europe did to them—pushed the Palestinians into a struggle in which they paid the highest prices, leading to what has happened in Gaza today. And they are still not ready to answer a simple question: What next?

Hamas and the factions rejected the resolution before it was issued, and repeated their rejection afterwards, listing all its dangers to the Palestinian people and the future of the Palestinian cause—as if they had discovered penicillin, or as if no one sees what they see. But before the rejection, shouldn’t they, for God’s sake, stand honestly and answer one question out of a million: What do you have to offer the children and women swimming in complete darkness, in floods of rainwater and sewage, with the first change in weather? We know they will respond with political language: Does this mean giving up what remains of national dignity? Our advice: stop using such terms. The world will say to all of us—not only to you—“There is no dignity for a homeland you lost and tore apart, and today you weep for it like defeated ones who did not know how to protect it like real men.” As for us—safe with our children and families, far from death, hunger, and illness—we will not be more Catholic than the Pope. And in this case, “the Pope” is the masses of the oppressed on earth who have lost everything.

No one doubts that we, as Palestinians, have entered a stage of uncertainty, unable to predict even one day ahead. The doors have been opened wide for the whole world to intervene in the details of Palestinian life, from its entrance to its sanctuary. And no one doubts that the far-right government in Israel is waiting to pounce on any sign the initiative might carry as a chance for Palestinian salvation and their national project. The ways the far-right can overturn the initiative are many, and the first of their narratives will be built on Hamas’s public rejection of a resolution that has become a reality. This will branch into many vague, uncalculated details, starting—but not ending—with disarmament. Before all of that, there are three bodies still trapped under the rubble and destruction, which Hamas considers one of the last cards of strength it will not relinquish before defining a role for itself. For the far-right “government of legends,” this is an awaited window—a chance to point to as justification for not moving forward with the next step. Step by step, complications will increase, leading to the highest aspiration of the far-right government: gaining renewed legitimacy for the war machine, but this time with international legitimacy.

Those who drafted the resolution know from the beginning that it will not proceed as written on paper. And Israel’s far-right government approved it only to avoid direct confrontation with the White House; they will not risk losing the last remaining allies on the planet. But they also know how to turn this challenge into an opportunity. Within the resolution are enough loopholes to overturn everything—something Hamas is certainly incapable of handling, as ideology still rules their decisions. Those who will deal with a world driven entirely by interests will not be able to go far if they lack the ability to adapt. The experience of the past two years—and the delay in decision-making—has cost Palestinians immensely, costs we clearly see. Reusing previous methods of conflict management, proven failures, will be nothing less than collective suicide for the Palestinian people. And let no one think Benjamin Netanyahu does not understand the meaning of international forces entering Gaza. If Palestinians see them as custodial forces only, he sees them as forces that strip away all the tools he used to manage the conflict.

In conclusion:
Hamas’s weapons will be taken, the tunnels destroyed, and the movement will be removed from the scene, whether it wants to or not. This has become an international decision. Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians hope this happens quietly, with the least possible losses, preserving Palestinian identity and protecting Palestinian blood. But for the far-right government, victory can only be achieved through the tools of military death and further Palestinian suffering.

Giving them such an opportunity—and betting on more time or on interventions from here or there—has become a form of illusion. Those who sought dialogue with Hamas in the past did so for one reason: the presence of hostages. Today, dialogue will be in a different language: either full, unconditional implementation of all requirements of the UN resolution, or death—along with thousands of new victims.