Despite its might and Washington’s unwavering support, Israel is now facing a level of isolation it has never experienced before. Morally, it has lost ground, and the claims of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu regarding the historical persecution of Jews no longer carry weight. The boycott of his speech at the United Nations marked a pivotal moment—if leveraged wisely. Yet, this moment can only be seized by halting normalization, abandoning the submissive language of the Palestinian Authority, ceasing its attempts to demonstrate “good behavior,” and uniting efforts to hold Israel accountable.

Netanyahu’s message was unmistakable: no Palestinian state, even a truncated one devoid of sovereignty; no distinction between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority; no differentiation between Arab states that have normalized relations to the extent of alliance with Tel Aviv and those that have not. He insists on being the region’s ruler, while Palestinians are merely incidental beings within his sphere of influence, their lives deemed meaningless. His colonial, racist arrogance seeks to mask the shock of Israel’s unexpected exposure and global isolation. The scene at the UN in New York echoed across streets worldwide, across waters adorned with flotillas of resilience heading toward Gaza, and in universities, schools, and unions. The voice of Palestine penetrated Hollywood, its name becoming a badge of pride for celebrities, as if worn like a medal.

The flood of images supporting Palestinian freedom was evident at the UN, and the impact of some speeches reflected a deep resonance with the scale of Israel’s genocidal war crimes in Gaza. It responded to the roar of voices condemning Israel and demanding Palestinian freedom in streets, theaters, films, and parliaments, echoing in every language. Yet, what was witnessed at the UN fell short in confronting the crime or matching the liberation wave that views Palestine as part of reclaiming its humanity. This is not about courageous words from Latin American leftists alone; even French President Emmanuel Macron, oscillating between colonial tendencies and a desire to absolve France of complicity in Israel’s crimes, invoked the words of Mahmoud Darwish, as if quoting the poet could absolve France for supporting an occupation that saw no problem in exterminating the original inhabitants.

However, without decisive action from Arab states to demand Israel be held accountable, preceded by freezing (if not halting) normalization with those threatening Palestinian existence and future, the impact—even if substantial—will remain hollow words. Israel will find ways to dissipate their effects.

Indeed, the recognition of a Palestinian state is conditional and fragmented, starkly contradicting the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, which cannot be conditional. Yet Israeli leaders perceive even conditional recognition as a grave threat to their plans. They view any Palestinian entity, even a tiny fragment of Palestinian land lacking sovereignty, as an existential threat to a project that cannot succeed without erasing the identity of the land and its people. There is no room for coexistence between the imposed identity of the colonizer and that of the indigenous population. Hence, Netanyahu’s absolute rejection of a truncated Palestinian state was clear—the Zionist project cannot tolerate any Palestinian existence.

This calls for a different approach: concrete steps that the Palestinian Authority must adopt first. I say this with hesitation, as it seems there is no one to heed the call, and with deep frustration, because the Palestinian Authority president’s words were the opposite of what was needed. They were submissive, attempting to present credentials based on proving “good behavior.” The president appears to believe such language is necessary to halt the war and extend the Authority’s influence in Gaza and the West Bank. What is nationally required is unwavering commitment to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination—not accepting conditions for a “state” stripped of sovereignty, a fictional entity with undefined borders, deprived of dignity and freedom. Neither submission nor acquiescence will suffice, not even for a token state in Palestine.

How can any official commit to an unarmed state and call it a “state”? These are distorted concepts that have replaced true liberation principles. Instead of challenging the language of colonialism and racism, Abbas sought to prove “good behavior.” Even if the Authority’s behavior in the West Bank is deemed “wise,” and the problem lies solely with Hamas, how does one explain the demolition of camps, destruction of homes, and the shrinking of the Authority’s own influence in the West Bank? What is required first is replacing this humiliating language with rights-based language, as defending rights is itself a form of resistance. Changing the discourse is a prerequisite for activating the Authority’s role as the recognized representative in international forums under the Palestinian Liberation Organization, enabling it to move toward holding Israel accountable.

This is what the Hague Group seeks to do. It has taken upon itself to monitor the case filed with the International Court of Justice regarding Israel’s genocidal war, supporting steps to sanction and isolate Israel in the UN and other international legal arenas. Yet the Palestinian Authority remains inactive, awaiting the projected declaration of statehood, as if that alone would deter Israel. It seems Colombia, hosting the Hague Group, has assumed responsibility more effectively than the Palestinian Authority in translating international court achievements into tangible steps. While Colombia acts responsibly, officially it cannot substitute for the Authority’s role, though it admirably fills gaps left by Arab states and the Authority.

The Palestinian Authority must act with responsibility and courage, removing any pretext that allows normalization to continue, and initiate effective Arab mobilization. The objective should be to harness the momentum of global support to launch campaigns imposing sanctions on Israel. Yet, it is clear that Arab states concerned with their relations with Israel and “proving good faith” weaken themselves and the global campaigns, leaving the Palestinian people—and even these states—at Israel’s mercy.

UN sessions and waves of solidarity movements for Palestine have shown that Israel suffers from an extraordinary moral isolation.

The paradox is that Zionist voices are warning that Israel’s continued contempt toward Palestinians and Arab states threatens Arab-Israeli agreements and the future expansion of normalization, including adding other Arab and foreign states to the Abraham Accords. Meanwhile, Arab states strive not to jeopardize these agreements or even freeze them. Here, one cannot ignore the critical point: alongside the Palestinian Authority pushing for Israel’s accountability, Arab states must free themselves from the fear of halting normalization to become effective players internationally. This includes Syrian-Israeli negotiations, which depend not only on the Syrian leadership but also on supporting Arab states to stop the farce—not merely to unify Arab diplomatic stances, but to save Syria from a predator attempting to impose conditions on an Arab state after dismantling its military capacities and violating its territory. What logic is this? Why would Israel take any Arab statements seriously? The same applies to Lebanon; the issue is not only Lebanese elites but also Arab states leaving Lebanon isolated.

UN sessions and the global wave of solidarity for Palestine have proven that Israel faces extraordinary moral isolation. Yet without an Arab—not merely Palestinian—stance against normalization, and re-centering the Palestinian cause as the central issue, recognizing Israel as a strategic threat to all, Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, and Arab peoples will remain at the mercy of Israeli aggression, each alone, on a day when regret will be futile.

*Al arabi al jadeed