Last week (25.07) President Emmanuel Macron of France has declared that his country will recognise the state of Palestine at the upcoming UN General assembly meeting in September. According to his announcement, the Palestinian state would be recognised in the West bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem and would be demilitarized. This announcement comes after several other European countries recognised Palestine last year.
Beside praise and support from many other European and global leaders, some of which vowed to follow France’s footsteps and recognize Palestine as well, Macron’s declaration drew criticism and even outrage. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed the decision “rewards terror” following the Oct. 7th attacks. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio condemned the decision as well, claiming “it sets back peace”. More gentle criticism came from Armin Laschet, a CDU politician and the head of the foreign affairs committee in the German Bundestag, who claimed that Macron’s declaration “did not serve the peace process”.
Is it a good idea to recognise a Palestinian state, especially now? Would doing so help bring peace and stability to a region full of conflict and suffering or harm the so-called peace process and increase terrorism, as supporters of the western status quo argue?
An endless peace process
In contrast to most of the world, which already recognised Palestine unilaterally, traditional western policy towards Israel-Palestine argues that a Palestinian state would be recognised following a bilateral peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, through which a two-state-solution would be negotiated. This so-called “peace process” is, under this premise, the negotiations between Israel and the PLO that started in the 1990s with the Oslo accords, which were supposed to be an interim agreement that would pave the way for the establishment of a Palestinian state. It makes sense, if so, wanting to recognise a Palestinian state whose territory, authority, and structure are accepted by both sides. It is certainly better to recognise a state which exists in reality than one that only exists on paper.
This requires, however, that such a peace process would indeed take place. Yet the Oslo process is all but dead and buried. Consecutive right wing Israeli governments rejected emphatically any form of Palestinian self-determination and massively expanded settlements in the West Bank, whose entire purpose is to prevent Palestinian territorial integrity and statehood. The Israeli Knesset even voted recently for a formal resolution to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and support annexation of parts of the West Bank.
It is therefore strange that actors who seek to kill the peace process suddenly bring it back to life when countries break away from this policy and move towards recognising Palestine unilaterally. Those who have no problem with expanding settlements, land grabs and annexation cannot, in good faith, argue out of worries for the same peace process they helped to destroy.
Never the right timing
Another common argument against the recognition of Palestine criticises its timing. It claims that European recognition of Palestine at this time will reward Hamas for committing the Oct. 7th terrorist attacks. On the surface level, it makes sense: The number of countries recognising Palestine has increased since Oct. 7th 2023 and Hamas could interpret that as its own achievement. If so, this begs the question: when was, or would be, a better timing to recognise Palestine?
Indeed, recognising Palestine long before Oct. 7th and the following escalation would dismiss the notion of “rewarding” terrorism and violence. The problem is, nonetheless, that Netanyahu and his supporters never genuinely considered moving forward towards Palestinian statehood. Israel, supported actively or passively by its western allies, pursued instead a policy of “conflict management”, seeking to keep violence at a manageable level while giving up efforts to solve it. To talk about the right timing is therefore disingenuous; those who use Hamas as an excuse now also refused to recognise Palestine well before Oct. 7th.
Most importantly, it would be helpful to ask: does international recognition of a demilitarized Palestinian state in the 1967 borders along Israel, as referred to in the French announcement, embolden terrorism and violence or rather empower moderate actors? Hamas, for one, does not believe in a two-state-solution. It contributed its fair share to the failure of the Oslo process. The French President declared along many other European and - most importantly - Arab countries explicitly that Hamas must be dismantled and have no role in Gaza and in the future Palestinian state. A recognition of Palestine would give therefore a desperately needed boost to moderate actors on the Palestinian side.
Hamas has, in fact, immensely profited from Israel’s conflict management policy until Oct. 7th, which aimed to keep Gaza and the West Bank separated to prevent Palestinian statehood. In this framework, Hamas has been seen - in the words of Israeli finance minister Bezalel Smotrich, as an “asset”, while the much more moderate Fatah-led Palestinian Authority, which recognises Israel and openly supports the two-state-solution, was seen as a “liability". According to this doctrine, Hamas’s rule in Gaza would give Israel a good case not to engage in peace negotiations. Accordingly, Israel tolerated Hamas’s rule in Gaza and even indirectly supplied it with cash, while choking the PA in the West Bank, expanding its settlements, and criminalizing nonviolent forms of Palestinian resistance engaged by the PA, such as international legal actions and precisely its campaign for recognition.
In other words, Israel punishes Palestinians who adhere to nonviolence and seek peace, while rewarding violent and terrorist factions like Hamas. If not to recognise a Palestinian state now, then when?
The reality on the ground
Many point out that a Palestinian state lacks the basic requirements of a state - permanent population, defined territory, government and capacity to enter foreign relations.
The permanent population of the Palestinian state are the Palestinian people in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. That is undisputed under international law. It is also, for the most part, capable of entering foreign relations, with the PA already engaging in foreign and diplomatic relations with most of the world and Israel itself. What remains contested is therefore the question of defined territory and government.
With regard to defined territory, critics point that it is unclear what the borders of a Palestinian state would be. And indeed, although on paper its legal borders are the 1967 war cease-fire line - the West Bank, the Gaza strip and East Jerusalem - it would be hard to fully stick to them in reality, given Israel’s massive settlement enterprise, which carved up the land to build Jewish settlements along the West Bank. Putting aside the religious and nationalist motives behind the settlement movement, the settlements serve one primary strategic function - to make the establishment of a future Palestinian state impossible. Currently around 700,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Transferring the Occupier’s civilian population into an occupied territory is illegal under international law and it is widely accepted that the Israeli settlements amount to that.
It is for these reasons hard to define the territory of the Palestinian state. It is, at the same time, abundantly clear that Israel caused this problem knowingly and deliberately. Denying Palestinian statehood on the grounds of undefined territory would be unprecedented: it would amount to a gross misuse of international law and would essentially reward its systemic violation. If the inability to define the territory of a Palestinian state lies solely on unilateral Israeli actions, then this cannot prevent the recognition of a Palestinian state; To suggest otherwise leads to absurd conclusions.
Another problematic aspect is the question of governance, as many critics question the PA’s role as the government of the Palestinian state. Currently, the occupied Palestinian territories are governed by an array of entities: in the West Bank, the Palestinian authority exercises authority over Palestinians in the A and B territories, while Israel controls area C; East Jerusalem was annexed to Israel, and its Palestinian residents were given Israeli permanent residency but no Israeli citizenship; Since 2007 and up until the current war Gaza was governed by Hamas.
It is true that the PA’s sovereignty is limited and is being constantly disregarded by Israel in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. Nonetheless, it has a governance structure and provides infrastructure and social services to Palestinians under the circumstances of an Israeli military occupation. The PA is, of course, far from perfect. For it to regain the trust of the Palestinian people, it would have to go through a series of reforms and, above all, hold a democratic election for the first time since 2006, as stated in the French announcement. It would also have to regain control from Hamas over Gaza, to which the French initiative rallied the support of key Arab countries. To claim, however, that the PA-government does not fulfil the requirements of a government creates once again a situation where the misuse of international law rewards its violator.
As it fulfills all of the requirements of statehood, Palestine is therefore a state - occupied by Israel.
But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that it is not: if Palestine is not a state, then Israel is the only state which exists between the river and the sea. Israel’s de facto permanent occupation - which is illegal under international law - would become de jure as well, as Israel could no longer argue it is temporary. Accordingly, the reality in which Israelis and Palestinians on the same territory are subjected to different legal systems, which is already widely deemed as a system of apartheid, would become permanent as well. If Palestine is not a state, then the choice is between an openly declared apartheid apartheid system or a “one person, one vote” state. The former is a crime against humanity, while the latter is utterly impractical. Aside from the mere acknowledgement of the reality on the ground, The recognition of Palestine is, under current circumstances, the only way to revive any political solution based on mutual recognition and sovereignty, which remains the only viable political solution.
A Federal Solution Rooted in International Law is what the region needs
In one point, the detractors of Macron’s decision are right, the recognition will not, by itself, solve the conflict. Therefore, the global community and especially Europe have to remain proactive. In line with JEF Europe’s resolution ”JEF Europe’s Position on the Future of the Israeli–Palestinian Peace Process”, which advocates for solutions such as “|a binational confederation or a federation of Israel-Palestine with a robust constitution ensuring the balance of powers, respect for national identity and self-determination and the principle of rule of law and subsidiarity in governance”, innovative solutions are needed.
The two states solution is the natural starting point for a peace process, it reflects the legal situation and the international consensus. However, division and borders are not enough to ensure true dialogue between opposing sides, and only real peace process, one that is based on people to people movement and local self determination, can do that. Federalist solutions are also historically prominent in international and local proposals, with the 1947 Partition Plan envisioning two interconnected states and the early peace movements in Israel and Palestine both advocating for free movement, trade, and binational frameworks as cornerstones for any lasting peace.
Many activists, Israelis and Palestinians, are waking up to these realities. Starting from the first step of stopping the war and the war crimes associated with it, but also actively thinking on how a future peace process and solutions should look like. Thus, the pressure should not only be composed of “sticks”, but also carrots - positive engagement, help, and capacity building on the ground, with local activists from both sides.
JEF Europe, JEF Germany, JEF Italy and young Israeli and Palestinian federalists are currently fundraising for a “Federalist Peace Forum” in September. To support it, click here - https://www.betterplace.org/en/projects/156747
Follow the comments:
|
