The occupation diminishes any real Palestinian sovereignty on the ground, weakening the Palestinian population’s commitment to a two-state solution. Because the occupation fails to abide by any agreements to withdraw to areas outlined in United Nations Security Council resolutions, Palestinians are again—individually, in-place—moving towards withdrawing recognition of Israel and erasing notions that equate land to peace. Other voices call for greater communication with the Palestine of 1948 in a manner distinct from a political proposal but which hints at reviving the possibility of a one-state solution. Others, regarding themselves the most realistic politically, do not consider such a suggestion viable due to Israeli intransigence. Another point of view considers abandoning the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people due to its possession of papers on their history is in itself a blind leap of faith.

There are those who propose combating a racist occupier, which comes through engaging in civil action as a single entity, a collective human rights struggle that may preserve the historical right of the Palestinians to their land.

The area of their historical land that Palestinians live on is confined. The Palestinian Authority cannot set all hands or the ever-growing queues of graduates to work. It cannot liberate the entire land. The people live without transparency in every part of their existence; accusations of corruption are levelled, starting with family and ending at the highest of representative institutions. Different social groups live in a state of distrust.

Collective thought has been split along national and religious lines; this nonetheless does not diminish either identity’s side to inherited customs and traditions. One division is in the geographical space between resistance movements inside and outside. Another is in the concept of identity split between religious and patriotic or national lines in a way that does not negate forming relationships with either the Arab world nor regional and international supporters. It is related to the different global forces that drop one approach in lieu of another.

Geopolitics inform the thinking of millions living at home in a way different to that of millions of others abroad.

The link between belonging and identity is perceived differently according to the nature of a group and the place from which its principles and ideas originate.

Society is in a constant state of attrition over the nature of identity that governs the direction of its expression, behaviour, and movement. A lack of direction in finding solutions is the basis for this.

Weak representation in official institutions of the Palestinian population as a whole is one reason the cause that unites the Palestinians has weakened and declined in its international standing. This is because the parties that believe themselves to be the political representatives of the Palestinian people do not agree on methods of managing these institutions, the nature of their relations and their financing, and their intellectual, social, and political principles.

Attempting to produce sociocultural movements that touch on political reform that does not in general abandon its official institutions—but rather detests them, does not recognize their existence, and can only acknowledge their reactionary tendencies or corruption in some matter or another—is the basis of current political work, improving the conditions of some individuals and groups at its expense. Or perhaps there is a sincere voice that believes in reform or bringing down the whole system to build anew.

Structuring civil society is the goal of any civil movement, even if it is characterized by rigidity of ideology, by the hardening of concepts in the Palestinian situation and the inability to mitigate some of its misery. This links to some’s tendency to militarise and make a show of strength that might defeat the enemy, resulting in societal ills that feed on this approach. Meanwhile, the other part—the majority, in fact, in contrast to what society (which is ruled by fear) publicly pronounces—tends toward peace, and there are tells in its rhetoric that express this. But there’s an intellectual crisis arising from not linking its pacifism to any political approach that affirms one’s value as an individual before the value of society.

Any accepted political comprehension stems from human principles that recognise a person’s existence, rights, and dignity. Justice and equality are not satisfied in meeting one’s immediate needs. This is due to the link to early planning in producing any decision, even if singular and related to the family, the first building block of any society. Otherwise, if someone works towards whatever objective they’re aspiring to, it’ll be limited to the individual, beginning with migration and ending in despair and a desire to repatriate. For the lack of opportunity, security, and even life in their local community at home, the migrant begins to feel that, should they settle abroad, their thoughts would turn back home, where one does not live in that same security. Here lies the difference between accepting or rejecting collaboration and resources.

Everyone is stuck in a futile loop, thinking only about themselves as the repression—lack of opportunity—controlling people both apathetic and participant accumulates. The liberal values of governance that allow one to engage are abandoned for populism and left to atrophy; like dignity, they’re viewable but unattainable, becoming like window shopping. Democracy and liberties become cheap products: how could someone from land plundered by others of its resources live worrying about others’ (for example, the LGBTQ+ community) rights? Would this be seen as a possibility—a luxury—in a place where unemployment queues grow as automation does, and basic needs are unmet? Are words even sufficient to express the feelings at play?