There are currently two concomitant tracks in dealing with the Palestinian cause. The first is through “Freedom Flotillas” and is sponsored by Turkey, while the second is through indirect negotiations and is sponsored by the United States. The Freedom Flotillas track provoked a wide international commotion and entailed the issuance of a presidential statement by the Security Council due to the brutality with which Israel dealt with civilian ships carrying pro-Palestinian activists and humanitarian aid, and due to the fact that the Turkish state has long enjoyed exceptional relations with Israel and is now trying to balance its Middle Eastern relations. In this context, many sides in the Middle East seem to have followed this track, whether by announcing the dispatch of similar ships, by expressing solidarity with Turkey and praising its escalation steps toward Israel, or by taking part in the Palestinian reconciliation efforts. It is certain that Turkey's accession to the anti-Israeli camp and its link of the resumption of normal relations with Israel to steps undertaken by the latter toward the Palestinians and their human and political rights is a serious addition to the Arab front. However, the “Freedom Flotillas” track could pose a threat on the Palestinian cause, whether intentionally or non-intentionally, in the presence of an inclination among this track's enthusiasts to exploit the wave of international sympathy toward the wretched humanitarian situation in Gaza, in order to politically publicize Hamas, which is controlling Gaza, and limit the Palestinian cause to the lifting of the current Israeli blockade imposed on the Strip. In the context of the talk regarding the alternatives to deliver the humanitarian aid, Hamas's leaders and sympathizers with the movement are stressing the latter movement's sovereignty and the independence of its decision. This gives the impression that the task at hand which is linked to the repercussions of the “Freedom Flotilla” incident is corroborating this inclination and all that it carries in terms of the necessity to support the Hamas-led “state of Gaza.” This is especially true since the movement, and after it gained control over the Strip following the failure of the Israeli attack on it, has been trying to tighten its political grip – following its security grip - over the Strip. Despite its brutality and the tragedies it is causing, the lifting of the Israeli blockade imposed on the Palestinians does not solely mark a solution to the Palestinian cause and cannot remedy to the situation in the West Bank and Jerusalem where the citizens are enduring all sorts of oppression, humiliation and depravation at the hands of the occupation. Indeed, the legitimate demand to see the lifting of the occupation's blockade over the Strip is as politically important as the discontinuation of the occupation's practices in the West Bank. We should thus not fall in the trap of holding on to “the independent state of Gaza” at the expense of the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank with Jerusalem as its capital. On the other hand, and in order to find a peaceful solution based on the two-state proposal, the United States is sponsoring indirect talks between the Authority and Israel via a presidential envoy. Regardless of the possibility of seeing these negotiations reach the desired result, it must be noted that the American mediator is currently farther from Israel than ever before. In other words, the current American administration is not fully adhering to the Israeli position, although it is not adopting the Palestinian one. Indeed, while it would be difficult to describe its stand as being neutral or as having relinquished the support of Israel, it expressed its discontent toward the Israeli policy on more than one occasion and adopted different viewpoints which brought about the wrath of the Zionist lobby. Washington forced the current Israeli right-wing government to accept the indirect negotiations following a series of positions which opposed the Israeli policy, whether at the level of the settlement activities, the approval of a statement calling for rendering the Middle East a region free from nuclear weapons, calling on Israel by name to join the International Atomic Energy Agency, or approving the Security Council presidential statement in regard to the attack on the “Freedom Flotilla.” The indirect negotiations track, despite the pessimism surrounding its outcome, is still dealing with a schedule focusing on the establishment of a Palestinian state. In other words, it is dealing with the cause as a whole and not just to resolve a specific problem in it. The two tracks are currently quasi-concomitant and the threat facing the Palestinian cause resides in seeing one replace the other or considering that either one of them could constitute a solution on its own. The non-deployment of efforts to reach a formula that would bring them together will not be in the best interest of the one cause.
