Following in the footsteps of US General Keith Dayton, who attempted to forge a new Palestinian identity and transform former liberation fighters into guardians of Zionist settlements, French President Emmanuel Macron is accelerating the drafting of a new Palestinian constitution. This initiative aims to politically exploit the genocidal war in Gaza and deliver a fatal blow to Palestinian national rights.
It is impossible to discuss a Palestinian constitution without recalling the recent past: the adoption of the Palestinian Authority’s “Basic Law.”
This law, considered the Authority’s constitution, was meticulously crafted to adapt to the major political upheavals of Oslo, which led to the publication of the “Roadmap” and the growing influence of the “International Quartet.” At that time, this development stemmed from the American desire to remove Yasser Arafat from the Palestinian political scene and install his successor, Mahmoud Abbas.
As a reminder, during the proclamation of the State of Palestine on November 15, 1988, the Palestinian National Council called for the drafting of a constitution.
Several drafts were prepared, but none were adopted. Nevertheless, after the Oslo Accords, the process was revived. The Palestinian Authority, in the autonomous territories, needed a constitution or a basic law.
In 1993, and then in 1994 and 1995, five more drafts were prepared and rejected. The Palestinian Legislative Council, elected in January 1996, then began its work, despite Arafat's opposition. Finally, the thirteenth version was adopted on October 2, 1997, but President Arafat only reluctantly signed it on May 29, 2002. It was published in the Official Gazette in a special issue on July 7, 2002, at the very moment when negotiations with Israel had failed and the Israeli government had begun its unilateral policy of closing off the occupied territories through the construction of the "apartheid wall."
Thus, the publication of this foundational document was dictated by the necessity of Mahmoud Abbas's accession to power, in response to the demands of the United States, which called for the transfer of most of Arafat's powers to his successor.
This transfer materialized in the creation of the post of Prime Minister, while the President of the Palestinian Authority became "Head of State" within a parliamentary system with essentially symbolic powers. The new unified version was published in a special issue on March 19, 2003, and then amended on August 13, 2005.
Thus, the agreement reached by Mahmoud Abbas with President Macron on the need to draft a “new constitution” constitutes a power grab against the constitutional text that brought him to power.
Therefore, it appears that the series of major transformations in the post-genocide Palestinian situation requires the completion of several stages, which implies radical modifications to the initial version, now ill-suited to the current phase:
That of the definitive dismantling of the Palestinian national cause.
The 2003-2005 constitution is no longer valid, even though it was very effective in initiating the liquidation of the Palestinian national cause. And here we are again, preparing to draft a new constitution. The common thread between the old and the new is Abbas and his designated but illegitimate successor, Hussein al-Sheikh, in Ramallah.
Without dwelling on the illegitimacy of Macron's claim to participate in drafting a constitution for Palestine—a claim he should have first examined by ridding France of the harmful effects of its own anti-democratic policies, contrary to the spirit of the French Constitution, before asserting the right to draft one for another country—it is essential to remember that the joint declaration by the French and Saudi foreign ministers will constitute the framework for the envisaged "constitution," thus embodying all future Palestinian concessions.
The first—and most dangerous—of these concessions is the official renunciation by the Palestinians of their right to self-determination, in all its diversity. While the Franco-Saudi declaration mentions the need to implement UN resolutions concerning Palestine, it does not actually mention any of them.
In doing so, it would legitimize certain resolutions (such as Resolution 242) and invalidate others (such as Resolutions 181 and 194), in blatant contradiction with the spirit of international law.
It would also transform this law into an instrument of political opportunism and Machiavellianism, disconnected from any notion of justice.
Of course, the preamble to the forthcoming draft constitution could refer to the right to self-determination as a mere pretext. But this right cannot be diminished for the benefit of one part or another of the Palestinian people:
It is an indivisible right, founded on all international resolutions relating to the rights of the Palestinian people.
The Palestinian constitution must be based on respect for the right to self-determination, and more specifically the right of return, an imperishable individual and collective right that cannot be subjected to negotiation maneuvers or unequal power dynamics favoring the colonial state (rights are not negotiable).
The return and compensation of the 1948 refugees are equivalent to those of the 1967 displaced persons. The right to self-determination forms an inseparable whole, at the heart of the Palestinian people's national cause in all its dimensions.
No Palestinian authority has the right to negotiate this right with the Zionist colonial entity that created the Palestinian diaspora during the two aforementioned phases.
If the essence of the right to self-determination lies in granting the people the capacity to freely decide on the form of government they desire and the means to achieve it, without external interference, then the Macron-Abbas duo is preparing to draft a constitution that denies this right, even though they are both foreign to this people:
The former's "Frenchness" is no less foreign than the latter's "Palestinianness," who arrogates power over a portion of the people without any legitimate basis.
It is certain that a partner of the Zionist leadership in the war of extermination—by continuing to supply the genocidal state with weapons, ammunition, and military technology, and by working feverishly to silence the Palestinian voice in France—has no interest whatsoever in the implementation of justice.
Its true objective is to use the Zionist war of extermination as a precondition for the political annihilation of the rights of the Palestinian people, in service of the Zionist colonial project.
In this context, it is striking to note the extent to which some supporters of the Palestinian cause in France, particularly within left-wing circles, become complicit in this fragmented vision of Palestinian rights, especially the right to self-determination. This “unconscious” complicity leads them, unintentionally, to adhere to this Macronist vision, which is essentially Zionist in inspiration.
During a university seminar, I met a prominent figure in the Palestinian cause, and when I raised the issue of the right to self-determination of all components of the Palestinian people, this legal expert objected, arguing that rights are not eternal.
She emphasized that the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people (the Palestine Liberation Organization) had recognized the State of Israel, thus invalidating, in her view, previous resolutions, such as those mentioned in this article (181 and 194).
The jurist went on to assert that the right of return, guaranteed by international resolutions, contradicts the PLO's recognition of the State of Israel and the international recognition of that state's legitimacy since its creation in 1948.
For me, it was essential to remind this eminent international human rights defender that the partition plan for Palestine, although imposed from the outside without prior consultation with those concerned, was in blatant opposition to their national aspirations for an Arab Palestinian state, which went far beyond the narrow scope of this unjust partition resolution.
Despite everything, this resolution recognized a certain degree of Palestinian self-determination within the recognized Jewish state, stipulating that 405,000 Palestinians were equal citizens to their Jewish fellow citizens in that same state, whose number was only slightly higher at 558,000.
The Jewish state recognized by the United Nations was de facto a “binational state” par excellence in terms of citizenship, before being transformed into an exclusively Jewish state through the forced displacement of its Palestinian citizens. Subsequent international positions stipulated the necessity of their return and compensation for lost property. These resolutions, which Zionism ignored, effectively invalidated the international recognition of this state.
What the United Nations had recognized was a Judeo-Palestinian state of 14,000 square kilometers, not a purely Jewish state reserved for Jews alone. The international resolution recognized the citizenship of 405,000 Palestinians alongside 558,000 Jews within a binational “Jewish” state, a resolution that the Zionist movement refused to respect.
Depriving this segment of the Palestinian people (the refugees) of their rights to equal citizenship and to live in a homeland constituted a grave violation of their right to self-determination and citizenship. The suffering endured by subsequent generations of refugees is a continuation of this violation of their right to self-determination.
Thus, the announced Franco-Palestinian constitution will perpetuate this renewed denial, despite its contradiction with the most fundamental principles of justice.
Will the war of extermination in Gaza be followed by a war of extermination against the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and return, under the false pretext of creating a Palestinian state?