The Legal Department of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine has sent a letter to the Committee drafting the “Interim Constitution” of the State of Palestine, clarifying its position regarding the draft interim constitution. As it presents these observations, it also welcomes any developmental suggestions, on the Front’s paper. The text reads as follows:
Within the framework of the ongoing dialogue surrounding the draft interim constitution of the State of Palestine, the Legal Department of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine believes that there is no need at this stage to adopt an interim constitution for the State of Palestine, nor is there any expected benefit from doing so. Rather, undertaking such a step under the current circumstances may harm the course of the Palestinian national struggle and place unjustified obstacles and challenges in its path, especially in the absence of an elected legislative framework, and indeed in the absence of any agreed framework to ensure comprehensive national consensus among all Palestinians.
The constitution of any state – whether temporary or permanent – is the document that determines how the people exercise their right to sovereignty over their homeland. In the absence of the ability to exercise sovereignty, due to the reality of occupation, speaking about a “constitution” becomes merely a theoretical luxury that diverts attention from the need for a unified national strategy to resist the occupation until it is removed and ended. The process of ending the occupation is a complex struggle that cannot be bypassed by artificially creating institutions or fabricating titles.
We particularly warn against the claim that there is a need for an “interim constitution” suited to the condition of a “state under occupation.” A constitution in any state is the source of legal legitimacy, and adopting one under the condition of a “state under occupation” would mean legitimizing an illegitimate reality. The condition of a “state under occupation” is an abnormal and unnatural situation whose contradictions can only be resolved by removing the occupation. Any attempt to formalize it through a constitution is an attempt to normalize it and encourage coexistence with the reality of occupation rather than resisting it.
Likewise, caution should be exercised regarding the claim that an “interim constitution” is necessary to regulate the process of “transition from authority to state.” The “transition from authority to state” is essentially a struggle aimed at ending the occupation; it cannot be reduced to merely reorganizing institutions or replacing their names.
The “transition from authority to state” constitutes a specific chapter in the broader stage of national liberation in the Palestinian case. In fact, this is the fundamental truth that is being obscured in the current discussion about the constitution: that we are still passing through a stage of national liberation governed by the laws of struggle between a people and a settler-colonial, racist system that seeks to erase our national existence and disperse it. In such circumstances, the priority lies in unifying our people within the framework of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in order to continue the struggle to end the occupation and restore the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people.
We would also like to recall here that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 67/19 of 2012 still constitutes the legal basis for the wide international recognition of the State of Palestine, which has so far included 159 states. One of the provisions of this resolution recognizes the institutions of the PLO as the leading and legislative institutions of the State of Palestine, representing it in the United Nations. Therefore, introducing a new element in the form of a constitution that creates other institutions of the state could lead to confusion that may weaken international recognition of Palestine and/or weaken and marginalize the Palestine Liberation Organization and its internationally recognized legal personality as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.
Another issue may appear purely practical but is in fact entirely fundamental. The Declaration of Independence proclaims the State of Palestine as “a state for all Palestinians wherever they may be.” However, under the reality of occupation—which eliminates the ability to control crossings and borders, and prevents control over the population registry, which is the legal record of citizenship—how can citizens of the state among the Palestinian diaspora exercise the rights guaranteed to them by the proposed “interim constitution”? What is the point of a “constitution” for a state in which half or more of its citizens cannot exercise their rights under it?
We undoubtedly suffer from a constitutional vacuum. However, there is another, more realistic way to address this vacuum. This path lies in restoring the status of the “Declaration of Independence” document, which enjoys national consensus and represents a creative document that forms the ideal preamble for any Palestinian constitution. As for citizens’ rights, the powers of authorities, and the relationship between them, these can be guaranteed by reactivating the provisions of the amended Basic Law, which unfortunately remains suspended due to the absence of an elected legislative framework and the serious violation of the principle of independence and separation of powers