How Normalization Became a Structure, Not an Event?

If normalization was for decades reduced to the image of a handshake, a trade agreement, or a cultural meeting, then the aggression on Gaza and the accompanying crimes and expansion of settlements in the West Bank revealed that this definition is no longer sufficient to understand the transformations of the Palestinian issue. The question is no longer who shakes hands, but rather how the occupation transformed into a viable reality that reproduces itself? In this sense, normalization is no longer merely a political or cultural act, because that is its superficial or performative level. Rather, it is a process of taming and an integrated structure that reshapes consciousness, economy, and politics. It does not seek to improve the image of the occupier as much as it tries to transform its existence into an ordinary matter, shifting the discussion from ending the occupation to managing it, and from liberation to improving living conditions. Here lies the most dangerous function of normalization, because it makes remaining under occupation a “rational” choice. In this sense, too, there is the normalization of consumption through the creation of dependency and normalcy. The entry of Israeli products into the Palestinian market goes beyond selling goods to selling an idea, making the consumer an agent promoting the presence of the occupation in their home and surroundings. Buying a product becomes a political act that makes the occupier part of your economic life cycle, stripping you of your economic independence and making you a financier of its project. The Oslo process contributed to entrenching this transformation to varying degrees. The interim agreement did not end with a state, and over time it transformed into an administrative and economic system that manages the population more than it confronts the structure of the occupation. As a result, a large part of daily Palestinian life became linked to a system whose keys are controlled by the occupation, through movement, trade, and crossings, or resources, taxes, and the labor market. Therefore, if liberation means disengagement, then normalization has become a condition for survival. Thus, a relationship of dependency arose that made separation more costly over time, and we fell into the trap of rationality, which created an imaginary division between the “rational” Palestinian who accepts this reality and the “irrational” one who rejects it. The matter is not limited to economics or administration, but extends to the psychological and social spheres. A person living in a reality that lacks a political horizon rearranges their priorities in search of individual stability, even if it is at the expense of the national project. Over time, the language of rights transforms into the language of services, and the language of liberation into the language of crisis management, and maintaining a minimum daily life becomes an alternative goal to changing reality. This is not a result of an individual choice as much as it is a reflection of circumstances that produce what sociologists call adaptation to the dominant structure. The most dangerous levels of normalization is borrowing its security lexicon to interpret the Palestinian reality, and using the same terms internally, or adopting its definition of what is “dangerous” and “safe.” In doing so, you surrender to its sovereignty over your consciousness, and it succeeds when it makes its security obsession your daily concern, making you an involuntary guardian of its interests under the guise of maintaining public order. In contrast, the international community played an ambiguous role. Despite the widespread international criticism of the occupation’s policies and legal actions, its mechanisms are still unable to impose a political and legal cost commensurate with the scale of the violations. Instead of addressing the roots, its efforts are directed at containing its humanitarian consequences and preventing its explosion, which creates a paradox that prioritizes crisis management over resolution. Nevertheless, reading normalization as a structure does not mean that reality is an unchangeable fate. This structure can be dismantled if a national vision is available that gradually rebuilds elements of steadfastness, starting with strengthening the national economy and reducing dependency wherever possible, entrenching the Palestinian narrative in the cultural and media sphere, and investing in education and scientific research as long-term tools of resistance, and a critical review of the Palestinian experience away from accusations of treason and sanctification, because those who do not review their mistakes reproduce them.