Is a UN Imposed Palestinian State Wise?
Is a UN Imposed Palestinian State Wise?
by Charles Strohmer
In September, the United Nations will vote on whether to grant statehood to Palestine. Unless something profoundly changes in Israel or Palestine before that day, almost certainly the vote in the General Assembly will be overwhelmingly “Yes.” This will seem like imposing a bridge too far for Israel to cross. What will occur afterwards is anyone’s guess. Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, isn’t hopeful. He believes it sets the stage for a calamity. He’s expecting Palestinian riots to fully claim their state followed by tough Israeli crackdowns.
The road to Palestinian statehood is of course not new. It traces back to 1948. Here are the historical brush strokes. In 1947, after decades of trying to resolve the Arab-Jewish question in Palestine, the British gave up and handed the problem over to a fledgling United Nations. On November 29, 1947, the UN (Resolution 181) adopted a plan that would establish a Jewish and an Arab state in Palestine on October 1,1948, if certain stipulations were met. On May 14, 1948, however, the same day the British Mandate over Palestine expired, Israel unilaterally declared its formal establishment as an independent state.
Forty years later the Palestinian National Council unilaterally presented its Declaration of Independence (November 15, 1988), which was similar in context, meaning, and reasoning ro Israel’s 1948 declaration. The UN General Assembly, by a large majority, then adopted a resolution acknowledging the PNC declaration and stated that the designation “Palestine” should now be used in place of “Palestinian Liberation Organization” in the UN system. The international community, sans Israel, the US, and several other nations, had recognized that the PNC declaration satisfied the criterion for statehood under customary international rules, as had the 1948 Israeli Declaration of Independence.
In 1993, the Palestinian (National) Authority was created by the Oslo Peace Accords as a provisional government of Gaza and the West Bank that would eventually be replaced by a sovereign Palestinian state. Today, the Palestinian state is recognized as such by over half the world’s states. The PNA is legally recognized by international law as representing whatever territory the entire state of Palestine will eventually include; it has international relations with many states and its passports are recognized around the world.
Will the up-coming UN vote in September result in a reverse effect to 1948? In 1948, Israel’s Arab neighbors resisted the new state of Israel, which it saw as being imposed on them; in September, Israel most likely will resist this next formal phase on the Palestinian path to statehood. Political imposition is rarely a good strategy. The war about Iraq is only the most recent poignant example. Let us hope and pray that this time the better angels of everyone’s nature instead prevail.
It’s too bad that the UN vote comes now. Relative to previous Palestinian norms, and as a remarkable example of what remains possible in Gaza, the West Bank under Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s leadership is experiencing an economic boom, much greater security, more accountable state institutions, the dismantling of illegal militias, and jail terms for members of Hamas for crimes of aggression and money laundering. But more than that, Palestinians in the West Bank have been making normative “nonviolent methods” as “the preferred means … to achieve the final goal of ending the occupation and establishing the Palestinian state.” Natalia Simanovsky calls this the Palestinian secret that the mainstream media doesn’t cover, and as a result, “principles of nonviolence” have taken “firm hold in the collective Palestinian psyche” in the West Bank. (See the full article at Common Ground News Service, a site I highly recommend.)
Of course, if only one side is trending toward non-violence, it’s not enough. But, as discussed in a recent article in The Nation, an increasing number of Israelis in recent years have been building relationships with Palestinians and joining with them in non-violent struggles in support of Palestinian causes. Also, large percentages of both populations still support a peaceable two-state solution, and the examples Tunisia and Tahrir Square have inspired many Palestinians about what it is peaceably possible to obtain, politically.
All of this makes me question the wisdom of the UN vote at this time. Would it not be wiser to allow time for more cooperative, peaceable relations to develop between larger constituencies of Palestinians and Israelis. Why impose a state now? Why potentially undo all the emerging goodwill?
It is my opinion that as long as Hamas remains part of the Palestinian government, Palestine no longer satisfies the requirements for statehood set out in the Montevideo convention. Primarily condition number four, which requires the ability to enter into relations with other states. I say this, because, as a US designated terrorist organization a Hamas controlled government is incapable of entering into relations with the United States nor can it enter into relations with Israel, as the Hamas leaders outwardly call for the destruction of Israel and refuse to recognize Israel as a state. Never in the history of the UN, has a group been granted statehood, when that group outwardly rejects and calls for the destruction of a UN state.
In my opinion, Hamas must take significant steps and cease operating as a terrorist organization, and it must recognize Israel. In order to maintain political stability in the Palestinian government Hamas and Fatah must work together, but Hamas needs to be viewed as a legitimate party. Israel must stop building settlements in disputed territory. Then the agreement should be as follows: Fatah must agree to give Israel the Jordan River Valley and certain settlements, be demilitarized, and recognize that Jerusalem will remain a part of Israel. Then a Palestinian state will be created and we will *hopefully* have peace. Once peace exists for a significant period, the borders will be opened, and all will have access to Jerusalem and their holy sites.
It is my, and I’m sure many others, greatest fear that 10 years after the creation of Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Palestine will once again attack Israel. I hope that the creation of a Palestine state will end the fighting and lead to a democratic middle east.
Caroline, thank you for taking time to write your thoughtful insights, and you’ve importantly added the Hamas – Fatah agreement into the mix, which cannot be precluded. Just a point of clarification, first, before I say more. I’m not sure I see how condition (article) 4 of the Montevideo Convention applies to the “ability of states to enter into relations” with each other, but you may know more about the MC than I do.
When you write, however, that “Never in the history of the UN, has a group been granted statehood, when that group outwardly rejects and calls for the destruction of a UN state,” I afterward thought that this may be the very reason why the UN could actually preclude the vote in Sept (not even allow a vote on recognition a that time). Why? If Hamas does not renounce it’s call for Israel’s destruction (in a way that is formally equal opposite to that principle in its charter), then would not the UN, having one of its better days(!), have a moral obligation to fulfill, to not permit the vote? I assume that for the general assembly this would be perfectly and clearly justified because of condition (article) 10 of the MC.
I wonder if leaders of Hamas and Fatah have considered this. (I know Abbas is keen on the MC, having publicly defended going to the UN in Sept based on several articles of the MC. Has he conveniently ignored article 10?) I guess the thing to watch for over the summer is whether Hamas renounces it’s call for Israel’s destruction.
I would like to comment on some of your offered provisions for a peace settlement but I want to ponder them further and I don’t want this reply to get too long. And, yes, I agree, it certainly is possible that a two state solution is no guarantee of a permanent peace in the region, although it would change the rules of the game, and that might give peace a fighting chance in the long run.
Well, in my opinion (I might be totally wrong), all issues about a Palestinian state now will lead to older debates in the past and to past wars. It’s a deadlock. What I would like to see now (I doubt that a UN resolution will change anything in the region) is a change in paradigm in the way this problem is perceived and in the way solutions are looked for. I doubt Israel and Palestinians will turn time back and will solve the problem as if nothing have happened. Therefore I think a new paradigm is necessary to unlock the deadlock. Therefore wisdom is needed on both sides in this conflict.
A new way ahead sounds good. Any ideas about what such a wisdom might look like – for a new paradigm to unlock the deadlock? It would have to be something radically different, eh? After all, what’s not already been tried?! George Mitchell has even recently given up, but not for lack of trying. He was probably too powerfully overwhelmed by Dennis Ross, who has political interests that are sympathetic, in my view, to neoconservatism and who remains a high-level Middle East adviser to the President.
Wisdom is a way ….., a way, e.g., to more cooperative relations (among peoples who are different) via impartial justice (fairness, equity). One untested alternative, which I argue is wisdom-based, would be for Washington to level the playing field between Israel and the Palestinians. No doubt I’m dreaming.
I can see your point about a resolution upping the ante, because it is an imposition. Your thinking, I think, is that building relationships is the only way. But I wonder whether the critical mass of Israeli political class is so determinately opposed to a Palestinian state that building relationships, important though it is, won’t be enough. Israel is showing its determination by trying to create “facts on the ground” with their settlements which make a Palestinian state a practical impossibility. Don’t they need to see a real determination in the rest of the world that a Palestinian state should exist (as envisaged by the original 1947 resolution) to concentrate their minds. Won’t it be good for them to have to think “this is a political reality we have to face up to whether we like it or not”? Of course they won’t like it, any more than Sinn Fein liked having to face up to the fact that there was no way that Northern Ireland was going to go away. Didn’t Sinn Fein need to hear the voice telling them (implicitly) “there’s no way that Northern Ireland is going to go away – you must accept that basic parameter but we are willing to negotiate with you to deal with your grievances.”? Is forcing people to face up to a hard reality incompatible with building relationships? A UN resolution would be an imposition, but not a military/violent imposition.
Andrew, this is a very good point: “A UN resolution would be an imposition, but not a military/violent imposition.” I had not thought of that. This is the kind of conversation and insight I hope to have more of on this blog, especially about realities as complex and world-historical as Israel & Palestine. I will now have a think about what you said. One thing that comes immediately to mind from your point: Israel in September (for it to work, then) will have to be “big enough” to not follow the example of the Arabs in ’48, who felt imposed upon.
Thank for your thoughts from Romania, Alexandru. You’re bringing up many significant issues. I suppose the most controversial one is the recent formal agreement reached between Hamas and Fatah, which means that if the UN votes _for_ a Palestinian state in September, any further negotiations with Israel will by default include Hamas at the table. But Israel has said it will not negotiate with Hamas. I now question the wisdom of this position. Perhaps it’s time that Netanyahu take a cue from an old colleague, the late Gen. Moshe Dayan and former Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, who said, “If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.”
I think it’s easy to “fix” things than to solve them properly. Perhaps Netanyahu has to read the book of Proverbs or talk to some wise people, not to play the card of a wise guy 🙂
The situation in the area might be more complicated by the unrest in Syria, and probably Egypt will have a lot to say in the near future. Given the new “revolutions” in some of the Arab states in the area and the political instability in the region, perhaps Iran’s role will have to be reconsidered. Also, most of the Arab left wing activists seem to have disappeared after the resurgence of Islam and the falling of the communist system in eastern Europe. Perhaps this is a good time for some of the major political players to reconsider their positions. The rising star of China could add complications, where money is an important factor. Maybe even the UN will have to reconsider the entire problem all together, especially now when Hamas and Fatah came to an agreement. Also, there is a clear disadvantage in the fact that Israel is functioning since 1948, but the Palestinian state has lost half of century of opportunities.