From New Delhi to New York.. When the Internationalization of Palestine Becomes a Battleground.

Author: Marwan Emil Tubasi

Between the announcement from New Delhi issued by the "BRICS" summit and the American decision once again to prevent President Mahmoud and members of the Palestinian delegation from obtaining visas to enter the United States and participate in the United Nations General Assembly meetings, a political picture emerges that deserves attention, not only from the perspective of condemning the American decision alone but also from the perspective of how to deal with the ongoing transformations in the international system from a Palestinian standpoint.

The BRICS announcement following the conference of its members in New Delhi did not merely reaffirm traditional positions regarding the Palestinian issue, but it also confirmed our people's right to self-determination and return, rejected forced displacement and geographical and demographic changes, called for an end to the occupation, supported the full membership of the State of Palestine in the United Nations, and urged for Palestine's representation in relevant international institutions, including multilateral financial institutions, and enabling it to access its resources.

These positions gain additional importance when they come from the BRICS grouping, which includes eleven countries, among them major international powers and countries with increasing political, economic, and demographic weight.

On the opposite side, the American decision to prevent the president and the Palestinian delegation from entering the United States to participate in the United Nations meetings came similarly to what happened last year. Washington cited among the reasons for its actions the continued Palestinian movement before the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, among other conditions, describing it as the 'internationalization' of the conflict.

The issue here goes beyond the visa matter, as the American message practically states that the use of international institutions and legal tools available to Palestinians can have a political cost.

Meanwhile, the BRICS declaration, in the opposite direction, states that the representation of Palestine in international institutions should expand, and its full membership in the United Nations should be realized.

This paradox opens up a range of practical options for Palestinian politics that deserve exploration, rather than merely relying on statements of condemnation through:

First: Transforming the BRICS position from a political declaration into an organized diplomatic path, through direct Palestinian dialogue with the member states of the group regarding the mechanisms for implementing what was stated in the New Delhi declaration, especially concerning Palestine's membership and representation in international and financial institutions.

Second: Expanding the movement within the United Nations General Assembly regarding the obligations of the host state, so that the visa issue does not remain a Palestinian-American dispute, but rather a matter related to the rights of states and peoples to representation within the international organization and the independence of the United Nations' work from the policies of the state that hosts its headquarters. Therefore, it may be necessary to work with the international community within the General Assembly to request the relocation of its meetings to a neutral country like Geneva, for example, where the headquarters of the UN organization is located.

Thirdly: Continuing to benefit from available international legal tools, including the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, within a comprehensive legal and diplomatic strategy, especially since the American objection to this path reveals the political importance that Washington attaches to it.

Fourthly: Building a broader political network that is not limited to BRICS, but includes countries of the Global South, European countries, and other nations that support the right to self-determination and the Palestinian state, with the aim of transforming scattered positions into a more organized diplomatic bloc within international institutions.

It is also possible to discuss the demand from BRICS countries that hold seats on the Security Council, particularly the permanent members including China and Russia, to translate the positions of the New Delhi Declaration into specific initiatives within the council, in parallel with actions in the General Assembly and other international institutions.

The issue today lies in the necessity to stop being beholden to an international axis led by Washington. What is required is a Palestinian reading of a changing world, diversifying areas of movement, and leveraging international contradictions and transformations to serve national rights.

If the 'internationalization of the Palestinian issue' is currently being used in Washington as a justification to punish the Palestinian leadership, then the possible political response to consider is not to retreat from the world, but rather how to make the Palestinian international presence more organized, expansive, and effective.

The BRICS announcement provides an opportunity and a platform for political work, and the US visa decision reveals the nature of the challenge. Between opportunity and challenge, the value of Palestinian politics is determined by its ability to transform international support from statements of solidarity into political, legal, and institutional tools that can accumulate, relying on a unified national liberation vision that we present to the whole world, built on foundations of broad democratic unity and partnership embodied by the overdue elections, considering them a political battle against the occupation and for preserving the unity of the two parts of the homeland and overcoming the crisis of our political system that has burdened our people.