Today, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is set to submit a demand to the UN Security Council for recognition of a Palestinian state in its 1967 borders.
It's an interesting time to be Palestinian, or Arab for that matter. The US will veto the bid, given strong Israeli opposition to it. Israel will oppose any bid for statehood which it does not negotiate itself. One could argue that some Arab countries would oppose it as well (though not openly of course). After all, the Palestinians have fought and struggled against Arab states as much as they have against the Israelis, and neither Jordan, Egypt or Syria has ever made a meaningful effort to establish a Palestinian state. Finally, in a touch of delicious irony, Hamas opposes the initiative to establish a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders - because that would imply the acceptance of Israel within its 1967 borders.
Some would argue that I'm missing the point, and that going to the UN is simply a way of asserting Palestinian national rights and placing Israel on the diplomatic defensive. Fair enough. Nobody expects the UN to grant the Palestinians statehood without US support and even if it did, well, it wouldn't change the reality that the West Bank and Gaza are either occupied or blockaded by Israel (and Egypt in Gaza's case). And it does place Israel in an awkward diplomatic position, and it could lead to protests in the occupied territories, and possibly another intifada. I'd think the Israelis already have their hands full dealing with the uncertainties of the political upheaval in the Arab world.
I personally don't believe that a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine would be a solution at all. A Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank would be controlled by Israel: Israel would control movement between the two territories, "Palestine's" foreign policy and military, and its borders. Palestinians would be totally economically reliant on access to the Israeli market for survival, which Israel would be free to deny at will. Last, but certainly not least, Hamas controls Gaza and opposes a two-state solution for its own ideological reasons, but also because it recognises that a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders would not be Palestinian, or would not be a state. At my own peril, I have to agree with Hamas about those points, even if I reject their ideology and strategy of firing pathetic rockets at empty fields. I'm all for a one-state solution: Arab-Jewish, secular, consociational, whatever. Deal with it. You broke it, you fix it.
Still, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians care about my views, nor should they. I can sympathise with any Palestinian attempt to salvage any political rights whatsoever, however compromised or limited. It's the Israelis' behaviour that I find puzzling. If I were an Israeli statesman, I would be concerned that the regimes whose stability is critical to my country's security are facing serious challenges. I would be losing sleep over the spread of popular uprisings across the Arab world. I would be worried about Egypt, and the fact that I could not longer depend on unconditional and unrelenting Egyptian cooperation over security issues, including containing the Palestinians. All things considered, I would be far more concerned with these developments than with expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank, or with the inevitable rise of a nuclear Iran that cares very little if at all about the Palestinians, or indeed the Levant and its people. I would give the Palestinians their statelet and move on, secure in my qualitative military superiority, nuclear deterrent, and the unconditional support of the world's sole superpower.
Of course, as a Lebanese I'm not too upset that Israel is not pursuing its national interest. I can't help but feel a little lucky that Israel's political leadership has to be amongst the most petty and myopic in the world. But then, by that measure, I'm sure the Israelis must feel equally lucky to have the Arabs as enemies.
It's an interesting time to be Palestinian, or Arab for that matter. The US will veto the bid, given strong Israeli opposition to it. Israel will oppose any bid for statehood which it does not negotiate itself. One could argue that some Arab countries would oppose it as well (though not openly of course). After all, the Palestinians have fought and struggled against Arab states as much as they have against the Israelis, and neither Jordan, Egypt or Syria has ever made a meaningful effort to establish a Palestinian state. Finally, in a touch of delicious irony, Hamas opposes the initiative to establish a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders - because that would imply the acceptance of Israel within its 1967 borders.
Some would argue that I'm missing the point, and that going to the UN is simply a way of asserting Palestinian national rights and placing Israel on the diplomatic defensive. Fair enough. Nobody expects the UN to grant the Palestinians statehood without US support and even if it did, well, it wouldn't change the reality that the West Bank and Gaza are either occupied or blockaded by Israel (and Egypt in Gaza's case). And it does place Israel in an awkward diplomatic position, and it could lead to protests in the occupied territories, and possibly another intifada. I'd think the Israelis already have their hands full dealing with the uncertainties of the political upheaval in the Arab world.
I personally don't believe that a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine would be a solution at all. A Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank would be controlled by Israel: Israel would control movement between the two territories, "Palestine's" foreign policy and military, and its borders. Palestinians would be totally economically reliant on access to the Israeli market for survival, which Israel would be free to deny at will. Last, but certainly not least, Hamas controls Gaza and opposes a two-state solution for its own ideological reasons, but also because it recognises that a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders would not be Palestinian, or would not be a state. At my own peril, I have to agree with Hamas about those points, even if I reject their ideology and strategy of firing pathetic rockets at empty fields. I'm all for a one-state solution: Arab-Jewish, secular, consociational, whatever. Deal with it. You broke it, you fix it.
Still, neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians care about my views, nor should they. I can sympathise with any Palestinian attempt to salvage any political rights whatsoever, however compromised or limited. It's the Israelis' behaviour that I find puzzling. If I were an Israeli statesman, I would be concerned that the regimes whose stability is critical to my country's security are facing serious challenges. I would be losing sleep over the spread of popular uprisings across the Arab world. I would be worried about Egypt, and the fact that I could not longer depend on unconditional and unrelenting Egyptian cooperation over security issues, including containing the Palestinians. All things considered, I would be far more concerned with these developments than with expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank, or with the inevitable rise of a nuclear Iran that cares very little if at all about the Palestinians, or indeed the Levant and its people. I would give the Palestinians their statelet and move on, secure in my qualitative military superiority, nuclear deterrent, and the unconditional support of the world's sole superpower.
Of course, as a Lebanese I'm not too upset that Israel is not pursuing its national interest. I can't help but feel a little lucky that Israel's political leadership has to be amongst the most petty and myopic in the world. But then, by that measure, I'm sure the Israelis must feel equally lucky to have the Arabs as enemies.
No comments:
Post a Comment