The agreement to normalize relations between the United Arab Emirates and the Zionist entity, last Thursday, August 13th, and the agreements that will follow after it; It should provoke all the Palestinian forces to seriously stop, leave the shouting and wailing as the agent of faded and empty denunciations, and look deeply into the current regional and international context controlling the path of the Palestinian cause, in search of new solutions that push the issue forward outside the (impossible) peace path that it has been following for more than 80 years, which aims to solve the issue on the basis of two states, and to move again to the path of peace (forbidden) based on the one-state basis for the Palestinian and Jewish peoples.

The deterioration of Arab reality

The agreement to normalize the Emirati-Zionist relations was not the first - and it will not be the last - it was preceded by a long list of Arab countries that established relations with the Zionist entity, and another list is waiting. This agreement and its ilk is a very natural result of the current deterioration of the Arab and regional context, which no longer allows the Palestinians and the Palestinian cause to rely on it at all, after it has expanded to include everything, and on top of that:

The agreement to normalize the Emirati-Zionist relations was not the first - and it will not be the last - it was preceded by a long list of Arab countries that established relations with the Zionist entity, and there is another list waiting, and it is only a very natural result of the current Arab and regional deterioration.

1. Disruption of Arab regional institutions:

The first is the League of Arab States, which includes 22 countries, on an area of ​​about 14 million square kilometers, inhabited by more than 400 million people, and its domestic product amounts to more than 2.5 trillion dollars, despite the paralysis that struck the League early on due to the conflict of interests of the member states sometimes. Or because of the hegemonic policies carried out by some countries at other times or because of the interventions of the major countries, except that they provided the minimum level of coordination and understanding on the overall issues facing the Arab region as a whole, in addition to the disruption of the Arab Maghreb Union and the Gulf Cooperation Council and their successors. Results and implications.

2. The failure of Islamic regional institutions:

On top of it is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which includes 57 countries, occupying more than 30 million square kilometers, of which it represents a fifth of the agricultural lands in the world, and its total domestic product is about 7 trillion dollars, and so far the organization has failed miserably to be an influential bloc at the state level. Members and at the international level, or to contribute to achieving coordination and integration, solving problems and embodying its motto (The All-Inclusive Voice of the Islamic World).

3. Domination of Qatari Interests:

The natural result of the failure of Arab and regional organizations to achieve coordination, cooperation and complementarity among member states is that these states retreat on themselves and begin to establish regional and international relations that suit them, and establish agreements and understandings that achieve their interests, whether on the political, military, economic or security levels. Or other fields.

4. Armed internal conflicts:

In Syria, Yemen, Libya and Iraq, which flared up in the aftermath of what was known as the Arab Spring, in which these countries turned into open battlefields in which regional axes with common foreign agendas compete, to pull the Arab region away from the Palestinian issue and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

5. The Zionist penetration of the countries of the region:

This reality allowed the Zionist entity to openly and actively enter the components of the structure of the Arab system, and the individual self-interests of the Arab countries or the conditions imposed on them were: It is the main motive behind the acceleration of establishing relations with the state of the Zionist entity, after Tunisia, Morocco and Egypt, especially after the Palestinian leadership surprised the Arab world in 1993 by concluding the Oslo agreement with the Zionist entity in a single way far from the Arab decision, to open the door wide for Arab countries to conclude Agreements with the Zionist entity, followed by Jordan, Oman, Mauritania and Qatar.

It is expected that the coming months will witness the process of concluding additional agreements between the Zionist entity and a new list of Arab countries, as a political entitlement that enables them to arrange their internal conditions and address their political and economic crises, and at the forefront of which are Saudi Arabia and Sudan. The UAE, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Palestinian interests, and its impact on the path of the Palestinian cause will not be like the impact of Oslo or Camp David.

Difficult Palestinian choices

Does the Palestinian leadership have the right to object to the Emirati-Zionist agreement, or to other upcoming Arab-Zionist agreements, after the Palestinian leadership established this unilateral, self-approach? The Palestinian leadership entered into secret negotiations with the state of the Zionist entity in the late eighties under the auspices of Norway, based on self-interests that the Palestinian leadership decided at the time, and these negotiations resulted in the Oslo Agreement, which the Palestinian leadership defended at the time in a desperate defense, despite the disasters that it caused to the Palestinian cause and the people The Palestinian, the curtain on what was known at the time as the (steadfastness and confrontation front), which was formed in response to the Camp David agreement between Egypt and the Zionist entity.

Faced with this upcoming political reality, and the political, security and economic consequences and consequences that will result from it, the current deterioration will worsen; The Palestinian leadership finds itself faced with 4 main difficult choices:

The first option: helpless waiting

Continuing the same approach that it is currently taking, bearing the hypocrisy of the international community, the arrogance of the American administration and its absolute bias towards the Zionist entity, and submitting to the iron upper hand of the Zionist entity and its elusive aggressive policies, and continuing to roam the regional and international forums to raise screams and wails and complaints against the violations committed by the Zionist entity. Someone will respond against it, and betting on what may arise from future regional and international transformations that will redraw the map of forces and balances in a way that forces the Zionist entity to implement international agreements and decisions.

This option is the most negative option, since the Oslo Agreement has passed 26 years ago, and the Palestinian leadership is moving from failure to failure at all levels, and it is watching the terms of the agreement evaporate before its eyes without having the power to preserve them, and continuing this option will end with the Palestinian leadership isolated. On a plot of land outside Palestine.

The one-state solution will put the racist Zionist leadership to the test before the peoples of the world, and it will draw the world's attention anew to the absurdity of the two-state solution, and to the realism of the one-state solution, similar to what happened in South Africa.

The second option: acquiescence

Entering into a partnership with the Zionist entity, based on complying with its conditions and accepting the political visions that he offers for a permanent solution, in a way that puts an end to the state of attrition that the issue is going through, the erosion of rights and land, the failure of the Arab environment and the international community, and their inability to force the Zionist entity to submit to legitimate decisions International.

This option the Palestinian leadership may have to enter into. But it will not be the choice that will achieve what it has been unable to achieve so far, in addition to which it will not be able to persuade the Palestinian people to enter it.

The third option: comprehensive resistance

Return to the option of comprehensive resistance and full engagement in a third intifada, which aims to disrupt the Zionist plan aimed at annexing the West Bank, cancel the decision to annex Jerusalem, spoil regional Zionist economic and security plans, and restore the momentum of the Palestinian cause again after it has disappeared under the smoke of Arab-Arab conflicts, In Syria, Yemen, Libya and Iraq.

The Palestinian leadership tried this option before during the first and second intifada, and got to know its pros and cons. It is a very successful choice in terms of inconveniencing the Zionist entity in the media, delaying its regional plans, and at the level of restoring momentum to the Palestinian cause. However, it will not achieve any new gains in terms of implementing international legitimacy decisions, and the price that the institutions of the Palestinian Authority, the resistance factions and the Palestinian people will pay will be greater than it was in previous times.

Fourth option: turning the tables

Turning the table on top of its creators, by leaving the (impossible) peace path, which all parties realize that it will not be achieved, and that it carries with it the seeds of its own mortality, which is the path of the solution based on two states for the Palestinian and Jewish peoples, and a return to adopting the (forbidden) peace path based on The basis of one state for two peoples, which is the option adopted by the Palestinian leadership in the 1960s, and the United States rejected it, and the Palestinian leadership warned against adopting this proposal; Because it implies ending the Zionist project.

It seems that this option is the option that will turn the tables on the head of the Zionist entity, and will spark a new political movement throughout the globe, and will put the racist Zionist leadership on the test before the peoples of the world, and will draw the world's attention again to the absurdity of the two-state solution and the realism of the one-state solution similar to what happened In the State of South Africa, however, the challenges that stand in the way of this option are very large, which are not easy for the current Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian forces to overcome. It remains an option that political experts assume is inevitable and has a high success rate. But he has not yet tried.