Palestinians walk among the rubble of destroyed buildings on the streets of Sheikh Radwan district, devastated by Israeli bombings in Gaza City, Gaza on October 20, 2025. [Mahmoud Abu Hamda – Anadolu Agency]
“Some policies are no longer valid and should not be reincarnated, the maximalist views on the Palestinian issue are no longer valid, we have to address the issue that we have two contending nationalisms fighting on one piece of land and that land has to be divided,” Gargash stated.
This rhetoric, simplistic and refusing to convey the reality of Israeli colonialism and genocide, only aids Israel’s erasure of Palestine. The more the language of compromise takes root, the clearer it is that Ghassan Kanafani was right in stating that Palestinians are facing a battle against Zionist colonialism and Western imperialism, on their own.
What are the maximalist views on Palestine that are no longer valid? Israel’s determination to erase Palestine completely? The Palestinians’ right to legitimate anti-colonial resistance for liberation and territorial reclamation? Israel’s view is entrenched in international law, crimes against humanity and genocide. The Palestinian struggle is one of legitimate rights. The land was divided decades ago under the 1947 Partition Plan which paved the way for genocide. Given the inherent erasure of the Palestinian indigenous population in the Partition Plan, is that not a maximalist view? If maximalist views are outdated, why not outdate the 1947 Partition Plan? Colonialism is reversible – that is not a maximalist plan but a regenerative one.
READ: UN committee says Gaza suffering ‘must end now’ as Israeli blockade, violence persist
“People want to see a long-lasting peace that actually stays and peace that will actually secure Israel, but will also give the Palestinians the state they deserve,” Gargash added. Palestinians deserve their land, not a fragment of it, upon which, after decolonisation, they can build their own state. International diplomacy does not envisage a Palestinian state for the Palestinians, or one that they deserve, but a semblance of a state that is subjugated to Israel and the international community.
In September, the UAE stated that annexation is a red line and would betray “the very spirit of the Abraham Accords.” The Accords themselves were a red line that no Arab leader should have crossed. If normalising relations with Israel allegedly falls under compromise, sidelining Palestinians falls under a maximalist view. Of course, normalisation with Israel is not a compromise – it is a maximalist view. But since it falls under international consensus, then it can be wrongly labelled as compromise.
Genocide is maximalist. Maintaining diplomatic relations with Israel after genocide is maximalist. The two-state paradigm, built on the premise of annihilating Palestinians under the guise of a hypothetical Palestinian state, is maximalist. The two-state politics has not saved Palestinians from Israel’s colonial violence; it precipitated a colonised population towards genocide. If world leaders are not supporting Palestinian liberation after genocide, are we speaking of maximalist politics now?
BLOG: Complicity with colonialism and genocide
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.