Between licking our wounds, getting over our shock, and trying to find alternate living conditions, not to mention being in a state of denial, it took us Palestinians well over a decade after 1948 to grasp what had happened to us and to start doing something about it.

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded in 1964 with the purpose of creating an independent state of Palestine. Its stated goal was the “liberation of Palestine” through armed struggle. Up till November 13, 1974, when Chairman Yasser Arafat made a dramatic appearance before the UN General Assembly and called on the world community to decide between “an olive branch or a freedom-fighter’s gun,” the Palestinian narrative was violent, and didn’t bother much with diplomacy. The stance was justified by pointing out that the Palestinian people had to resort to armed struggle because they had lost faith in the international community.

Come 1974, the Palestinian narrative started to have a more diplomatic tone and tried more consciously to place the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within the global context of struggles towards social justice. With the realisation of the importance of cultural exchange in increasing understanding between conflicting parties, the cultural dimension also became part of the Palestinian narrative. Edward Said emphasised this in his book Culture and Resistance.

Frustrated, oppressed, and still denied their freedom, Palestinians rose up in December 1987 to demand justice. Wisely, the Palestinian narrative was non-violent during the years of the first Intifada. Practically no arms were carried, and resistance took the shape of civil disobedience, defiance, factional coordination, and yes, stone-throwing. The world took notice, and for the first time since 1948, the Palestinian issue rose to centre-stage and the international community became interested in addressing it. The Palestinian narrative during those years correctly portrayed Palestinians as proud people fighting a military occupation in a humane manner.

Unfortunately, diplomatic attempts to resolve the conflict through the Madrid Conference and the Oslo Accords failed in the 1990s, which compelled Palestinians to rise yet again in the year 2000. This second Intifada, however, was bloody and violent. As cruel and unbalanced as the Israeli reaction was, the Palestinian narrative failed to properly address the moment, and the biased international media, forgetting all about the injustice, had its heyday depicting us as violent people, if not terrorists.

Have we erred in articulating our narrative? Should our narrative be aesthetically consistent? These questions need to be asked, but the scope of this column is way too narrow to enter into an in-depth analysis. We must admit, though, that sometimes we got it right and at other times we failed miserably. Although the main elements of our narrative should be consistent, a narrative should at the same time be dynamic, even in content, as it appropriates more effective and focused means of communication. No Palestinian would disagree that the paramount message of our narrative should include a demand for justice. Hope, a desire for decent living, and cultural immunity coupled with pride, freedom, belief in human values, social equality, and many more elements should also be integral to the Palestinian narrative.

It is time for us Palestinians to consciously address this issue and come up once and for all with a well-defined narrative which would serve as a guide in achieving Palestinian aspirations for a free and independent Palestinian state. We have drafted our own constitution and we have enough qualified people locally and in the diaspora who could work together to reach a consensus on a Palestinian narrative. This is a message for you, President Abbas.