Who’s afraid of recognizing a Palestinian state?
A boy waves a Palestinian flag at a demonstration in support of Palestinians and calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, in Barcelona, in January 2024
Alon Pinkas writes in Haaretz on 23 May 2024:
If there was a museum or hall of fame of foreign policy ineptness, its newest wing would be the Benjamin Netanyahu Pavilion.
There would be bigger halls exhibiting how the world obtusely and recklessly marched itself into World War I, a special hall describing America’s failures in Vietnam, and many more. But the latest wing would be devoted to Israel under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and its latest exhibition would describe how Israel is dealing with the issue of “recognition of a Palestinian state.”
Imagine the following Israeli reaction: “We have reservations and many caveats. But acknowledging that the future establishment of a Palestinian state as an outcome of negotiations is a possibility, and as a gesture of goodwill ahead of such a process, Israel recognizes in principle a Palestinian state and has no issue with upgrading the Palestinians’ status at the United Nations.”
There you have it. Could it happen? Of course not. Instead, while the world has mostly recognized such a yet-to-be established entity, Israel is still vociferously resisting the validity of the idea.
Next week, Norway, Spain and Ireland intend to recognize a Palestinian state. That is a symbolic diplomatic move with few practical implications, yet its political ramifications should not be dismissed.
Mr. Netanyahu has expressed on many occasions his staunch opposition to a Palestinian state. With his on-brand duplicity, he also previously supported such a state, under conditions and restrictions, and as recently as 2020 signed an agreement – the Abraham Accords – which calls for the establishment of such a state.
His opposition now is not based on national security or foreign policy considerations. He knows a Palestinian state will most certainly not be formed anytime soon. But it serves his bogus, fabricated alternative narrative on the October 7 catastrophe: a hostile world, including U.S. President Joe Biden, is trying to egregiously superimpose a Palestinian state on Israel. This is therefore an existential threat, “a second War of Independence.” It is neither. It is merely Netanyahu’s spurious spin.
“Wooden-headedness” in government, Barbara W. Tuchman defined in her seminal 1984 book “The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam,” consists of “assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs.” This, she writes, is epitomized by King Philip II of Spain: “No experience of the failure of his policy could shake his belief in its essential excellence.” It is perhaps better captured by Mr. Netanyahu, who would arguably be the subject of a sequel chapter in “The March of Folly.”
A man walking past graffiti reading ‘Victory to Palestine’ in Dublin on 22 May 2024
The political logic and benefits of the two-state solution seem self-evident to proponents of the concept and framework. At the same time, the intrinsic risks, the fears on both sides, the mutual animosity, the total lack of trust, and the current political and economic unviability of a Palestinian state are no less potent arguments.
The idea of a Palestinian state is a legitimate issue of debate, serious examination and cost-effective calculus. The assumption and predisposition that a Palestinian state is not only the desirable outcome but the inevitable result of an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, deserves critical scrutiny more than the world cares to admit.
Yet ignoring the issue or living in denial over its likelihood, and, most importantly, failing to come up with an alternative that is not a single binational state, is just as reckless. The idea that the status quo is sustainable and durable was shattered on October 7. But Mr. Netanyahu is still living in October 6 while telling everyone it’s 1948.
“Recognizing a Palestinian state is not a taboo for France,” French President Emmanuel Macron said while hosting King Abdullah of Jordan in February. That same month, British Foreign Secretary (and former prime minister) David Cameron said there will be a time when Britain would look to recognize a Palestinian state, including at the United Nations.
While the United States does not officially recognize the State of Palestine, it does recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization as the legitimate representative entity of the Palestinian people, as part of the 1993 Oslo Accords. Furthermore, it repeatedly declares its commitment to the two-state model, but emphasizes that it can only be reached by consent and as a result of negotiations, not through “internationalizing” the issue. In early February, the U.S. administration leaked that it is holding internal discussions and drawing up options, including recognition of a Palestinian state.
In a symbolic move earlier this month, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted to give the Palestinians full UN membership (143 countries in favor, only 9 opposed). The measure – which declared that Palestine qualifies for such membership – reflects a world consensus, whether Israel and the United States like it or not.
By extension, it also highlights Israel’s isolation as not only refusing to recognize a Palestinian state, but resisting the very validity of the concept. Full UN membership requires Security Council approval, where the Americans have veto power. But while that may be exercised, it will not change the reality.
What exactly does recognizing a nonexistent state mean?
The 1933 Montevideo Convention, in what is called declarative theory, determined four conditions that would legally constitute a state. First, it needs to have a defined territory. Second, it must have a permanent population. Third, it requires a government. Fourth, it must possess the capacity to enter relations with other states.
In international law, there is also constitutive theory, pertaining to the legality of a sovereign state. A state is a legal entity only if other countries recognize it as such. Based on this definition, there are several unique categories:
• Quasi-states – states that do not enjoy wide and full recognition. Case in point: Taiwan.
• Artificial puppet states – Historically, there have been states that had pro-forma sovereignty retained from a foreign power. For example, the Slovak Republic of Croatia, created by the Germans before World War II.
• Recognized but entirely independent – the Vatican (the Holy See), or the Baltic states when the Soviet Union still existed.
There are also states that supposedly comply with the Montevideo Convention but are not recognized: the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus, the Republic of Abkhazia, the Republic of Somaliland and now Palestine.
Even before the current manufactured diplomatic tempest in a teapot, 139 out of 193 UN countries already recognize the State of Palestine, and it has had nonmember observer state status at the UN since 2012.
Legally, the decision by Spain, Norway and Ireland to recognize a Palestinian state is therefore not dramatic at all. In fact, if the United States were to do so tomorrow, legally it would mean very little. Politically, of course, it would be a game-changer with significant implications.
Worldwide recognition of a Palestinian state can be dismissed as symbolic, but it sets a discourse and defines a preference that no one can ignore. It forces Israel to deal with the immediate feasibility of such a state, and the modalities and contours of such an entity rather than the validity of the idea itself.
Even if a Palestinian state is a “failed state” in the making and from the outset, it is still something Israel will have to consider. You cannot shape and influence the debate and process by negating it altogether.
Conversely, opposing it at this point requires coming up with an alternative – which is why Israel could and should have preempted the move with its own recognition. But asking Netanyahu and his messianic, detached-from-reality government of extremists to do that is like asking a fish to ride a bicycle.
This article is reproduced in its entirety