How can solidarity diplomacy address the challenge of neo-colonial influence in
Palestine?
Rather than approaching Palestine primarily through the lens of solidarity diplomacy and
Global South alliances, this essay advances a different analytical framework: it argues that
the persistence of the Palestinian crisis is best understood through the interaction of
international legal failure, regional power realignments, and the fragmentation of Palestinian
political representation. While anti-colonial solidarity has historically played an important
role, its contemporary limitations reveal the need to reassess where political leverage actually
lies in the current international system. The essay contends that the central obstacle to
Palestinian self-determination is not simply Western neo-colonial dominance, but the erosion
of enforceable international norms, the securitisation of diplomacy in the Middle East, and
the depoliticisation of Palestinian governance under managerial rule.
One of the defining features of the Palestinian question is the stark gap between legal
recognition and political enforcement. Unlike many anti-colonial struggles of the twentieth
century, Palestine enjoys unusually broad formal support in international law. UN General
Assembly resolutions affirming Palestinian self-determination, advisory opinions from the
International Court of Justice, and the recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer
state all suggest a strong normative consensus. However, this legal architecture has proven
largely ineffective in altering realities on the ground.
This failure reflects a broader crisis in international law, in which norms are increasingly
subordinated to power politics. Legal scholars argue that the problem is not the absence of
law, but the selective refusal to enforce it against powerful allies. In this sense, Palestine
exposes the limits of a rules-based international order that lacks binding mechanisms capable
of constraining militarily and diplomatically protected states. The issue, therefore, is less one
of colonial continuity and more one of institutional decay: international law functions
symbolically, offering recognition without remedy.
A second explanation for Palestine’s political stagnation lies in changing regional dynamics.
During the Cold War, Arab nationalism and regional rivalry with Western powers elevated
the Palestinian cause within Middle Eastern politics. In contrast, contemporary regional
alignments have deprioritised Palestine in favour of security, economic integration, and
regime survival.
The normalisation agreements between Israel and several Arab states reflect this shift. Rather
than viewing these agreements solely as betrayals enabled by Western pressure, they can also
be understood as products of regional recalculation. Gulf states increasingly frame diplomacy
through the lens of Iran containment, technological cooperation, and economic
diversification. Within this strategic environment, Palestine is often treated as a symbolic
issue rather than a central political commitment.
This regional transformation constrains Palestinian diplomacy more severely than external
neo-colonial influence alone. Even where rhetorical support persists, practical engagement
has diminished, leaving Palestinian leadership with fewer meaningful regional allies capable
of exerting sustained pressure.
Another critical factor is the fragmentation of Palestinian political representation. Since the
Oslo Accords, Palestinian governance has been divided institutionally, geographically, and
, politically. The Palestinian Authority operates under occupation-conditioned constraints,
while Hamas governs Gaza under siege, and the Palestine Liberation Organization no longer
functions as a unifying national framework for Palestinians in exile.
This fragmentation undermines diplomatic effectiveness regardless of external solidarity.
International actors often justify inaction by citing the absence of a unified Palestinian
interlocutor, while internal divisions weaken the capacity to articulate coherent political
demands. Unlike earlier periods when liberation movements mobilised around clear programs
of national liberation, contemporary Palestinian politics is frequently reduced to crisis
management and humanitarian administration.
From this perspective, the problem is not merely external domination but internal political
disarticulation. Without a renewed representative structure capable of integrating Palestinians
across territories and the diaspora, diplomatic strategies—whether solidarity-based or
legalistic—remain structurally constrained.
The growing dominance of humanitarian discourse represents another shift away from
transformative politics. International engagement with Palestine is increasingly framed in
terms of aid delivery, resilience, and emergency response rather than rights, sovereignty, or
liberation. While humanitarian assistance mitigates immediate suffering, it also risks
normalising permanent crisis.
Critical scholars argue that humanitarian governance replaces political responsibility with
technical management. In the Palestinian context, this translates into a focus on rebuilding
destroyed infrastructure without addressing the structures that repeatedly produce destruction.
This mode of engagement narrows the political horizon, transforming Palestine from a
question of justice into one of humanitarian administration.
Importantly, this trend is not limited to Western actors; it is also reproduced by international
NGOs and multilateral agencies whose operational mandates discourage confrontation with
the underlying causes of violence. As a result, the conflict is stabilised rather than resolved.
While traditional diplomacy has stagnated, digital platforms have reshaped how Palestine is
represented globally. Social media, independent journalism, and diasporic activism have
disrupted state-centric control over narrative production. Images, testimonies, and real-time
documentation circulate outside official diplomatic channels, challenging dominant media
framings.
However, digital visibility does not automatically translate into political change. Online
mobilisation often generates awareness without institutional leverage, leading to cycles of
outrage that fade without concrete outcomes. The challenge, therefore, lies in converting
narrative power into sustained political strategy rather than treating visibility as an end in
itself.
This essay has argued for a shift away from viewing Palestine primarily through the
framework of solidarity diplomacy and neo-colonial resistance. While these perspectives
Palestine?
Rather than approaching Palestine primarily through the lens of solidarity diplomacy and
Global South alliances, this essay advances a different analytical framework: it argues that
the persistence of the Palestinian crisis is best understood through the interaction of
international legal failure, regional power realignments, and the fragmentation of Palestinian
political representation. While anti-colonial solidarity has historically played an important
role, its contemporary limitations reveal the need to reassess where political leverage actually
lies in the current international system. The essay contends that the central obstacle to
Palestinian self-determination is not simply Western neo-colonial dominance, but the erosion
of enforceable international norms, the securitisation of diplomacy in the Middle East, and
the depoliticisation of Palestinian governance under managerial rule.
One of the defining features of the Palestinian question is the stark gap between legal
recognition and political enforcement. Unlike many anti-colonial struggles of the twentieth
century, Palestine enjoys unusually broad formal support in international law. UN General
Assembly resolutions affirming Palestinian self-determination, advisory opinions from the
International Court of Justice, and the recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer
state all suggest a strong normative consensus. However, this legal architecture has proven
largely ineffective in altering realities on the ground.
This failure reflects a broader crisis in international law, in which norms are increasingly
subordinated to power politics. Legal scholars argue that the problem is not the absence of
law, but the selective refusal to enforce it against powerful allies. In this sense, Palestine
exposes the limits of a rules-based international order that lacks binding mechanisms capable
of constraining militarily and diplomatically protected states. The issue, therefore, is less one
of colonial continuity and more one of institutional decay: international law functions
symbolically, offering recognition without remedy.
A second explanation for Palestine’s political stagnation lies in changing regional dynamics.
During the Cold War, Arab nationalism and regional rivalry with Western powers elevated
the Palestinian cause within Middle Eastern politics. In contrast, contemporary regional
alignments have deprioritised Palestine in favour of security, economic integration, and
regime survival.
The normalisation agreements between Israel and several Arab states reflect this shift. Rather
than viewing these agreements solely as betrayals enabled by Western pressure, they can also
be understood as products of regional recalculation. Gulf states increasingly frame diplomacy
through the lens of Iran containment, technological cooperation, and economic
diversification. Within this strategic environment, Palestine is often treated as a symbolic
issue rather than a central political commitment.
This regional transformation constrains Palestinian diplomacy more severely than external
neo-colonial influence alone. Even where rhetorical support persists, practical engagement
has diminished, leaving Palestinian leadership with fewer meaningful regional allies capable
of exerting sustained pressure.
Another critical factor is the fragmentation of Palestinian political representation. Since the
Oslo Accords, Palestinian governance has been divided institutionally, geographically, and
, politically. The Palestinian Authority operates under occupation-conditioned constraints,
while Hamas governs Gaza under siege, and the Palestine Liberation Organization no longer
functions as a unifying national framework for Palestinians in exile.
This fragmentation undermines diplomatic effectiveness regardless of external solidarity.
International actors often justify inaction by citing the absence of a unified Palestinian
interlocutor, while internal divisions weaken the capacity to articulate coherent political
demands. Unlike earlier periods when liberation movements mobilised around clear programs
of national liberation, contemporary Palestinian politics is frequently reduced to crisis
management and humanitarian administration.
From this perspective, the problem is not merely external domination but internal political
disarticulation. Without a renewed representative structure capable of integrating Palestinians
across territories and the diaspora, diplomatic strategies—whether solidarity-based or
legalistic—remain structurally constrained.
The growing dominance of humanitarian discourse represents another shift away from
transformative politics. International engagement with Palestine is increasingly framed in
terms of aid delivery, resilience, and emergency response rather than rights, sovereignty, or
liberation. While humanitarian assistance mitigates immediate suffering, it also risks
normalising permanent crisis.
Critical scholars argue that humanitarian governance replaces political responsibility with
technical management. In the Palestinian context, this translates into a focus on rebuilding
destroyed infrastructure without addressing the structures that repeatedly produce destruction.
This mode of engagement narrows the political horizon, transforming Palestine from a
question of justice into one of humanitarian administration.
Importantly, this trend is not limited to Western actors; it is also reproduced by international
NGOs and multilateral agencies whose operational mandates discourage confrontation with
the underlying causes of violence. As a result, the conflict is stabilised rather than resolved.
While traditional diplomacy has stagnated, digital platforms have reshaped how Palestine is
represented globally. Social media, independent journalism, and diasporic activism have
disrupted state-centric control over narrative production. Images, testimonies, and real-time
documentation circulate outside official diplomatic channels, challenging dominant media
framings.
However, digital visibility does not automatically translate into political change. Online
mobilisation often generates awareness without institutional leverage, leading to cycles of
outrage that fade without concrete outcomes. The challenge, therefore, lies in converting
narrative power into sustained political strategy rather than treating visibility as an end in
itself.
This essay has argued for a shift away from viewing Palestine primarily through the
framework of solidarity diplomacy and neo-colonial resistance. While these perspectives
