Why Israel Should Vote for Palestinian Statehood
No matter how difficult Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking gets, there are always opportunities to change its trajectory and move diplomacy in a positive direction. Another such opportunity will be provided later this month at the United Nations when the Palestinians ask for recognition as a state.
Some say that the Palestinians have no right to bring their case to the United Nations. Others say that the international community should let the Palestinians have whatever they want at the United Nations. These are false choices.
Instead, the Palestinians should negotiate their petition for statehood behind the scenes with Israel and other pro-Israel countries, including the United States, and then bring it forward to the General Assembly.
Israel should then vote for it. Doing so is squarely in its interest. Here's why.
First, an avalanche of warm feelings toward Israel would be unleashed by such a move. The whole world would cheer. Israel would ignite a positive response in the Arab world unseen since it first signed the Oslo Accords with the Palestinians in 1993. Other Arab states, including those whose transformation to democracy requires Israel to pay more attention to popular sentiments in these countries, would rush to create new relations with Israel.
Second, the Palestinians would have certainty that they would be getting a state. This would change the whole internal Palestinian political dynamic, demonstrating to Palestinians that the moderate leadership of Mahmoud Abbas -- one that promotes nonviolent actions rather than military ones -- could actually create results.
And third, Israel, despite supporting Palestinian statehood, would not notice one physical change on the ground in Jerusalem, the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. It would still hold all the cards, maintaining the same ability to negotiate that it has now. But unlike today, it would have massive international support for its arguments about recognition as a Jewish state by the Palestinians, no right of return for Palestinian refugees, and on Jerusalem. International opinion -- as opposed to now -- would be more flexible with Israel, helping Israel to advance its interests during final negotiations with the Palestinians.
Yet unfortunately, because Israel's current government does not want to go this route, and has instead launched an intense international campaign to block Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, the world holds its breath for the exact opposite to occur.
What we are likely to instead see once the Israelis vote against a Palestinian state and after the results of the vote are overwhelmingly in the Palestinians' favor, is an accelerating negative trajectory for Israel's position in the world.
In this scenario, it is likely that Israel will take action to annex territory in the West Bank where there are current settlements -- settlements that, after the statehood vote, would be perceived as illegal Israeli control of Palestinian national territory. It is also likely that the U.S. Congress will cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority, impoverishing the Palestinian government and possibly ushering in a more radical government led by Hamas. And it is likely that the diplomatic track between Israel and the Palestinians will be near death.
This is why the United States is so concerned about the pending U.N. vote on Palestinian statehood. The Obama administration correctly understands that the reactions to a vote in both the Congress and Israel will be severe, and when combined with the resultant Palestinian disillusionment, counterproductive to peacemaking.
There is also a tragic irony about this issue that should not be ignored.
In 1948, the process for creating a Jewish state was precarious and unclear. Yet the Jews of Palestine decided -- rightly -- to push forward to seek international recognition of their state at the United Nations despite the threat of war. And the neighboring Arab states reacted wrongly, rejected the state, and launched a fruitless -- and losing -- war. Imagine if the Arabs had, despite the political sacrifices it would have entailed, recognized Israel in 1948. Imagine all the pain that both Israelis and Arabs would have been spared.
Israel should therefore rethink its position before it's too late and make a choice based upon its real interests. It would benefit immediately and directly by voting in favor of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, and most importantly, even the majority of its own citizens' support Palestinian statehood and could learn to live with a "yes" vote. But by rejecting Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, Israel will be making a decision that, like the Arab decision of 1948, could haunt it for decades to come.
So Israel should vote for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations. Doing so will change nothing on the ground the day after the vote, but will make all the difference in the world for the two sides as they continue on their exasperatingly long journey toward peace.
In the prologue to The History of the Destruction of Jerusalem, the author Josephus tells us that works written earlier by others "were marred by inaccuracies and prejudice" and that he "hopes to comfort the conquered and to deter others from attempting innovations".
Josephus' classic account is indeed a gripping story evoking powerful emotions and leaves us in no doubt as to where our sympathy lies: As the mighty Romans lord over the powerless Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem perpetuating cruelty and injustice, the story is as old as mankind. The oppression of human beings by fellow human beings is not a tale told by an idiot but by the chronicle of time. And as this history repeats itself, the once oppressed can easily become the oppressor. Where once it was the all-powerful Romans against the downtrodden Jews, today it is the high and mighty regime of Israel against the helpless Palestinians.
Adding to this state of oppression is the deadly flotilla attack by Israeli commandos under the Netanyahu government, in which nine people were killed - with at least seven having been handcuffed and shot in the back of the head. Yet the latest United Nations report on the attack has completely gone off the mark by concluding that Israel's blockade of Gaza was a legitimate act of self-defence.
According to the Palmer Commission's report, the legitimacy purportedly arises from Israel having to take necessary steps to protect its people from violent acts by Palestinian militants in Gaza, such as the firing of illegal rockets into Israel.
While no one condones violent acts that threaten the security of the people of Israel, the purported rationale for self-defence in this case flies against the facts, the most telling of which is that a unilateral ceasefire by Hamas had already been in place since early 2009. Bereft of this pretext, the entire edifice for the perpetuation of deadly force by Israel crumbles.
But that is cold comfort for the 1.5 million Palestinians being incarcerated in Gaza, who are now at the mercy of Israel's land and naval blockade, which continues to deny them their right to move freely within and between all countries. Sanctioning such a military siege against a helpless civilian population is to turn the global rule of law on its head. And this is a community that has already been so dispossessed. As Edward Said once said, few national groups have been stripped of their humanity in the eyes of the world more blatantly than ordinary Palestinian men and women.
The attack on the humanitarian flotilla can neither be sanctioned nor rationalised. Apart from violating international maritime law, it was an act of ruthless aggression against an innocent party. No sovereign government can allow such a transgression to take place with impunity.
When two Israeli soldiers were captured by Hezbollah, Israel invaded Lebanon. Nine Turkish citizens have been brutally killed in international waters, and no one should expect Turkey to sleep over the death of its citizens. One of those killed was also an American citizen, the 19-year-old Furkan Dogan, about whom the Obama administration has kept silent. Turkey is therefore right in unequivocally rejecting the UN report and all attempts to justify the military siege of Gaza as legal.
Netanyahu's announcement that Israel will not apologise to Turkey demonstrates his dereliction of responsibilities and a particular callousness towards a nation that used to be a military ally. He is completely misreading the dynamic of the new Middle East, in which justice, not oppression and authoritarianism, will shape history.
More significantly, it has missed a golden opportunity to further the prospects of peace through an enhanced collaboration with democratic Turkey under Prime Minister Erdogan. There is no better time than now, particularly in the wake of the Arab Spring, for all parties to move towards a more enduring peace in the Middle East driven by universal ideals for freedom, democracy and justice.
Additionally, an increased awareness of Israeli apartheid around the world has worked to undermine the historically sufficient "security" argument used to justify the occupation of Palestine. It has been a short 20 years since the theatrical Arafat-Clinton-Rabin lawn party, and Israel has already traversed most of the distance to comprehensive global isolation.
Israeli analysts were right in their assessments of the consequences of the revolution in Egypt. In that country, most people are sensitive to the Palestinian point of view. Many of them believe that Zionism, which is Jewish nationalism in historical Palestine, is only the most recent iteration of European colonialism.
They are unsympathetic to the argument that it was necessary to ethnically cleanse Palestine in order to establish Israel. Moreover, they believe apartheid - the system by which Israel governs the Occupied Territories - is an atrocity.
For decades an imperious Egyptian dictatorship worked to protect Israel from popular opinion in Egypt. Its primary inducement was American money - about $2bn of it annually. But the revolution capsized Hosni Mubarak’s American jackboot and today Israel is forced to confront the irrepressible Egyptian call for Palestinian freedom.
Now Hosni Mubarak is on trial and the Egyptian-Israeli relationship is being similarly scrutinised. The Israeli ambassador’s recent flight from Cairo is a reasonable indication of where the relationship stands today. It is also probably a forward indicator.
History blindsided the Israelis in February; there was nothing they could do to preserve their strongman in Cairo. With Turkey, however, Israel’s political leadership worked with bizarre zealousness to undermine a reliable ally. By orchestrating a series of moves that showcased Israel’s contempt for Turkish lives, pride, property and humanitarian concerns, Tel Aviv succeeded in poisoning the only normal relationship it had with a Muslim-majority country.
Significantly, this occurred as Turkey sought to play a greater leadership role in the region.
Ignoring all the signals
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan signalled in 2009 - during Israel’s war on Gaza, which killed 1,400 Palestinians - that Israeli attacks on civilians would not be tolerated. The following year, Israeli commandos killed eight unarmed Turkish civilians and an American on international waters. The Turkish response was to demand an apology and compensation for the victims’ families. The Israelis refused, further incensing the Turkish leadership.
The relationship between the two countries worsened in recent weeks with the leak of a UN report on the flotilla. The report had been pushed by the Americans, who sought to use it as a vehicle for mending Ankara’s relationship with Tel Aviv. Significantly, it was to have been published after the Israelis apologised for the deaths of eight of the nine civilians (Obama has not asked Netanyahu to apologise for killing the American teenager).
Absent the apology, however, the report appeared to absolve Israel of its responsibility for the deaths, even going so far as to justify its illegal maritime siege of the Gaza Strip. The Turks reacted angrily and instructed the Israeli ambassador to return to Tel Aviv. The Israeli diplomatic mission was formally downgraded, and Turkey suspended all military ties between the two countries. Ankara also announced that Turkish naval vessels would accompany the next humanitarian mission to Gaza. The move is a direct challenge to de facto Israeli control of the Eastern Mediterranean.
Tel Aviv’s serial miscalculations vis-a-vis Ankara can be attributed to a myopic analytical scope.
The Israelis failed to successfully interpret macro-level developments in Europe and their impact on Turkey’s regional alignment; the advantages of joining the European Union have steadily declined as the financial crisis has grown more severe.
Simultaneously, the prospect of playing a regional leadership role has grown to outweigh the bit-player role Europe seemed to offer. NATO, of which Turkey is a member, has decreased in strength and influence, permitting the Turkish leadership to exercise greater national autonomy.
It is understandable, then, that the Israelis have reacted to an insistent Turkey with bewilderment. Historically, US influence in both Ankara and Cairo insulated the Israelis from the consequences of their boastful and bellicose self-regard.
Today, however, hegemonic decline means that for the first time in decades Washington cannot rescue Israel’s leaders from their own bad decisions. That reality continues to go unrecognised in Israel, where the leadership persists in making bad decisions.
Last week, for instance, Israeli Major General Eyal Eisenberg threatened the region with "all-out total war" and the"possibility of weapons of mass destruction being used" (Israel is the only country in the region with nuclear armaments). More recently, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman suggested that Israel ought to arm and support PKK terrorists in Turkey.
Meanwhile, the Palestinians are taking action on their own behalf.
The Palestinian observer delegation at the United Nations formally submitted its bid for statehood this week - a move that has long been anticipated by observers. The Americans, who still enjoy defending Israeli belligerence, have promised a veto. Despite that, the vote will result in greater Israeli isolation internationally due to widespread recognition that apartheid is wrong.
Most indications suggest that Israel’s increased global isolation will continue apace. The new Egyptian leadership - no matter who it is comprised of - will continue to object to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. An increasingly assertive Turkey will not be mollified by American entreaties and will continue to apply pressure on behalf of the Palestinians, who will pursue their right to freedom through international forums.
Indeed, the only way for Israel to gain acceptance in the broader Middle East is by ending the occupation. But that is a decision the Israelis don’t appear ready to make.
The recent release of an authoritative legal opinion highlighting certain unexpected, unintended, and serious political and legal dangers in the September initiative, has created useful popular discussion and public debate. The opinionassesses the implications arising if the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) replaces itself by the State of Palestine as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people at the UN.
The opinion was authored by Professor Guy Goodwin-Gill, perhaps the world’s foremost authority on international refugee law, and commissioned by his colleague at Oxford University, Karma Nabulsi. It appears to have been discussed with the relevant political figures within the PLO leadership, and its constituent parties and movements. A few individuals, including PLO Executive Committee members, have responded to the issues raised in this expert legal opinion. However, the main questions have still not been addressed by the PLO, and it is important to raise them again for the sake of an honest public debate on a matter of such critical concern to all Palestinians.
The main thrust of the Goodwin-Gill memorandum, that replacing the PLO at the UN with the state will undermine the political and legal position of the Palestinian people - especially the rights to return and to self-determination - remain unaddressed. What is suggested, however, is that the PLO's status will not be harmed if this happens, although the issue has not yet been responded to in detail or explained in any manner.
One explanation has been that the PLO will remain the overall representative of the Palestinian people, and it is even suggested (without any evidence) that the PLO's legal status will be advanced by this initiative, without saying how. But this does not address the key issue at hand: if the state becomes the representative of the Palestinian people at the United Nations, the status and role of the PLO is, without doubt, radically altered.
One Palestinian representative
Some suggest that the PLO’s status will not be harmed because the PLO itself will be submitting the resolution to the United Nations. Unfortunately, this argument is entirely irrelevant; the problem was never about who will submit the resolution, the PLO or the PA, but instead concerns what exactly the PLO will do when it goes to the General Assembly. What are the dangers if the PLO submits a resolution that removes the PLO from its seat at the UN as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and substitutes itself for the as-yet-unachieved State of Palestine? To clarify further: there is only one seat at the UN. Either the PLO holds it, or the state does. There cannot be two representatives of the Palestinian people at the UN.
This is where the problem can be seen clearly. The United Nations is where a people's legal representation sits. It is recognised by the international system within the United Nations. So the simple act of replacing the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people with a state (and, in addition, a state that does not even exist), removes the claims of the PLO to sovereign status as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.
This cannot be in dispute, for this is what is being proposed now. It does not matter if the Arab League or any other groupings of states recognise and deal with us as the "State of Palestine". Nor does it matter that, out of courtesy protocol, we have been given the name, or "designation", of the State of Palestine by the UN. The PLO is still the sole representative of the Palestinian people at the UN, and this is where it mattered, and this is what is now being proposed to be changed at the UN.
This is not a mere technical issue; it is a critical one with both political and legal ramifications of a serious nature, and which is rehearsed fully in the Goodwin-Gill Opinion. Most damaging is that this initiative (as currently formulated) changes our ability as a people to represent the totality of our inalienable rights. Through the PLO and its seat at the UN, the majority of Palestinians, who actually live outside the West Bank and Gaza, now have representation (undemocratic though it is) as equal members of the Palestinian body politic under a single political structure, and which was achieved by a previous generation in 1974 after enormous sacrifices. This principle of the political equality of Palestinians inside Palestine with the Palestinian refugees outside of it will be completely lost if the PLO is substituted by the State of Palestine.
Unlike the State of Palestine, the PLO does not derive its sovereign status from a territorial claim, but from the claim to popular sovereignty and as sole representative of an entire people. As such, its competencies are not limited by borders, and can encompass the Palestinian shatat in its entirety. This cannot be said for the State of Palestine, whose sovereign claim is severely limited and bound by the 1967 Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs), the vast majority of which it does not even control. What the Goodwin-Gill Memorandum confirms is that unless the UN seat continues to be held by the PLO, more than half of the Palestinian people will face the threat of disenfranchisement.
Opposing views
Another response was authored by an American lawyer who claims to have been the originator of this Palestinian UN state initiative, as well as the earlier initiative in 1988. It is suggested that the Palestinian Declaration of Independence contains legal and constitutional technicalities ensuring the PLO’s position will not be prejudiced by the September initiative at the UN. In particular, he notes that the PLO Executive Committee was set up in 1988 as the Provisional Government of the State of Palestine and that all Palestinians, regardless of their place of residence, were declared to be citizens of this state.
Once again, this response misses the point. After 1988 the PLO was indeed designated as “Palestine” within the UN system, but this was a courtesy title only, and does not change the PLO’s status at the UN. The real point is that a new, parallel system of governance has been formed in the OPTs since the Oslo accords in form of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Legislative Council, and it is clamed this will form the basis of the Palestinian State.
This parallel governance structure (limited in its institutional governance capacity to the OPT) is currently morphing, under the guise of the State of Palestine, into a parallel representative structure that is prepared to seize the PLO’s seat at the UN in September. More worrying is that some PLO leaders, entrusted by the Palestinian people with the preservation of this most important of all national structures, seem to be willing to go along with this scenario, and even encourage it, by imagining that this State will represent all Palestinians.
It is worth recalling that the 1988 Declaration of Independence did not pose a threat to the status of the PLO as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people at the UN, or anywhere else. If the PLO cedes its seat to the State of Palestine in September, it completely alters its status, becoming a subsidiary body to the state, without internationally-recognised representative capacities.
The Palestinians will then have two representatives, the state at the UN for those under the PA, and the PLO for Palestinians outside the borders of 1967 occupied Palestine. It also creates two tiers of Palestinians: one with certain core rights, and the majority who lose their ability to advocate for them. It would not matter if Palestinian refugees are declared to be citizens of the State of Palestine (which does not exist yet in fact), for such a state is territorially bound within an undetermined territory contained within the 1967 boundaries. Those refugees that come from 1948 areas will be left with even greater disenfranchisement and a serious representational crisis that affects their rights to return to their homes and to self-determination.
Key questions
These question of PLO representation cannot be taken lightly or dismissed flippantly, nor should the Palestinian people themselves be treated with contempt about these serious matters, and without taking into account institutional and governance developments since the 1980s. Indeed, the Palestinian leadership has a responsibility to take seriously, and engage with, the legal advice of leading international legal authorities. Concrete answers are still needed to the following questions:
- Why is there a need for the PLO or PA to make a new request for membership/observer status in the UN, given that the PLO already has UN observer status and could negotiate an upgrade of its status without a new request for membership/observer status?
- What are the advantages of such a new request for membership/observer status in terms of UN recognition of the territory of the state? How is the request for recognition of the territory of the state as that of June 4, 1967 formulated in the September initiative? Is it undetermined as in 1988? Or is any language on the state’s territory and borders planned at all?
- Why have there been efforts to discuss a constitution of the state that is being proposed to become the UN representative of the Palestinian people? If the state were to be governed by the PLO, then it should be subject to the PLO constitution. However, existing draft constitutions of the PA state assert that it will be a sovereign state, and not a subsidiary of the PLO.
- Who will elect the parliament and government of the state that would be the UN representative: the people in the OPTs? Or all the Palestinian people? It has been said that all Palestinians can become citizens of the state, including the Palestinians in the shatat. What will the state do so that all citizens can exercise their right to participate in its public affairs?
Yet it is far more dangerous to go ahead with ill-thought-out political initiatives which do not take into account such crucial legal concerns that remain - until now - unanswered; questions that were raised in a spirit of concern and public interest. In any case, the sole purpose and function of the PLO is to represent and serve its people, and to advance their rights. Closed-door discussions have, in the past, created problems, confusion, anxiety, and legitimate concerns. These national matters affect every single Palestinian in immediate and serious ways, and also affects our rights as a people collectively. Therefore we must debate and discuss these issues of our popular sovereignty and representation as a people - together, and in good faith.
Dr Abdel Razzaq Takriti is a political historian at St Edmund Hall, University of Oxford. He is active with Palestinian campaigns for democratic popular representation.
No comments:
Post a Comment