The South and Gaza were liberated due to the growing resistance …but time is not over

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Long decades ago, the occupation was the strongest, it was said what was refused by the leaders who stick to the Arab rights especially the right of the Palestinians has become a dream after awhile, and the resolution of the division of Palestine which was not accepted by the Arabs has become an unattainable dream later. It is known that Israel does not accept such resolution and no one in the United Nations initiated to put an agenda to implement the resolution of division no 181 as the resolution dedicated to the return of the displaced no 194. And what would have issued due to the Arab acceptance is similar to what was issued by the Arab acceptance of the resolutions 242 and 338; the survival of the occupation and the rash towards peace.  While Israel is Judaizing the land and devouring more geography, it strengthens itself in preparation for a war to come and to occupy new territories. The Arab acceptance of those resolutions does not prevent the occupation of Beirut and the South of Lebanon.

After the American announcement of the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the annexation of Golan to Israel, there were who said similarly that if the Palestinians have accepted what was offered by Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak in 2000 as half or quarter of the Eastern Jerusalem, they would not have lost all Jerusalem today, and if Syria has accepted Golan without Tiberius, it would not have lost all Golan. Those do not forget to say the contradiction; While they are pretending that they highly appreciate the leading capacity of the late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and the Late Syrian President Hafez Al-Assad, they refuse to admit that the rejection was made by them. Then they say that if they have known that before , they would not done so.

Let us discuss that, when the President Yasser Arafat accepted Oslo Accords, did the Israeli implement it? What was the result in areas A, B,and C, and when Syria accepted the Agreement of disengagement in 1974 as a temporary starting point for the withdrawal from Golan under American guarantee, did that happen/? when Lebanon accepted the resolution 425 and was seeking to implement it, did anyone respond?  And when Washington signed the nuclear understanding with Iran, did it hesitate to withdraw from it? Therefore, will the American signing on the agreement on Golan prevent the withdrawal from it, since the American signing on the agreement of disengagement which is based on the recognition that Golan is Syrian did not prevent it from the recognition of the annexation of Golan to Israel. Therefore, the only constant is not what was not accepted by the Arabs to avoid the worse or a search for a peaceful solution or what is signed by the American or the Israeli, rather it is the balance of forces.

Jerusalem and Golan are under the occupation since 1967, and the talk about the annexation is a political interpretation of the occupation not an expression of the change in the balances of forces, it is an interpretation of the inability to got the Syrian-Palestinian recognition of the legitimacy of the occupation of Palestine as an inevitable cost of any understanding proposed by Washington and Tel Aviv. So those who forgot that the Syrian rejection of bargain in the time of the late President Hafez Al-Assad has led to balances of forces which contributed in the rise of the resistance forces which liberated the South of Lebanon and Gaza without negotiation and without the recognition of the legitimacy of occupation have to be reminded that the objection that prevented the incomplete return of Golan as Sinaa has fortified the resistance and ensured the complete return of the South of Lebanon and Gaza, and because time is not over, the resistance which led to these two successive liberations will soon liberate Golan and what is far from Golan and Gaza…Jerusalem as well,,, let days witness that.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,