“A safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.” Ever heard that carefully crafted phrase before? It’s the phrase that gets repeated by politicians and diplomats when discussing what results from the end of the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine. On the face it, the phrase may seem well meaning but take a closed look. Why can’t Palestine also be “safe and secure”? What does “safe and secure” mean? Surely it means having the weapons and means to defend themselves from any external threat? As they suggest is the default for Israel?

The phrase implies that a future Palestine, as envisaged by Western diplomats, would be a de-militarised state. A state that couldn’t stop Israel from attacking at whim. This isn’t freedom, this isn’t sovereignty, it’s vassalage. The Palestinians haven’t struggled for over 75 years, against the odds, against the support from the West and with so much blood being spilt to live in a vassal state, a state that would effectively be controlled by Israel.

True sovereignty means the power to control every single aspect of the state. Legally, the West Bank and Gaza are one single entity. That entity would be the Palestinian state under this plan but true freedom must mean the right and means to defend themselves. The future cannot mean a Palestine that relies on Israel for anything.

The Palestinian state must have control over its own defence, borders, energy, food, water, housing, legislation, eduction, health and travel rights and access to its own sea ports and airports where people can be free to come and go. Palestine must be a fully fledged state in every sense with full diplomatic and political rights.

Any agreement must be explicit in the right of the Palestinian state to be militarised. Nothing less than this is acceptable; from the River to the Sea!