UN: Palestine is Now a Non-Member State; Reality: Palestine Will Continue to be a Non-Existent State
Twenty-four years ago, almost to the day, in 1988, I stood in a large hall in Algeria and saw Yasir Arafat declare the independence of a Palestinian state. And that was forty-one years, almost to the day, after the UN offered a Palestinian state in 1947. Twelve years ago Israel and the United States officially offered a Palestinian state as part of a compromise at deal in the Camp David summit of 2000.
Arguably, despite all their errors, the Palestinian movement has made progress since those events, though it is not very impressive progress. Yet in real terms there is no real Palestinian state; the movement is more deeply divided than at any time in its history; and the people aren’t doing very well.
Now the UN will probably give Palestine the status of a non-member state. The only thing that will change is to convince people even more that they are following a clever and successful strategy. They aren’t.
Perhaps in 24 or 41 years there will actually be a Palestinian state.
———————-
We need your support.
To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: <https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=ET6RUW2JGHGGW>
By credit card: <http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com> and click Donate button.
Checks: “American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line.
Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
For tax-deductible donations in Canada and the UK, write info@gloria-center.org.
Please be subscriber 30,496 (among more than 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
————————
There are two ways to respond to the General Assembly’s likely vote to so designate a state of Palestine. One of them is outrage at the absurdity of how the international system behaves. The other would be to dismiss the gesture as meaningless, even more than that, as something that will even further delay the day that a real, functioning state comes into existence.
Certainly, there are threats and dangers, for example the use by Palestine of the International Court. Or one could look at this as another step on the road to a final, I mean comprehensive, solution to the issue. Yet over all, I’ll go for disgusted and cynical as the most accurate responses.
Let’s start with disgusted. In 1993, the PLO made an agreement whose very basis was that a Palestinian state would only come into existence as a result of a deal made with Israel. Instead, the Palestinian side refused to make such a compromise and broke its commitments repeatedly. The ultimate result was Yasir Arafat’s refusal to accept a Palestinian state with its capital in the eastern part of Jerusalem both at the 2000 Camp David meeting and a few months later when President Bill Clinton made a better, and final, offer.
I have just this minute come from an interview with a very nice journalist who asked me, “But doesn’t Israel want everything and offer nothing in return.” What was most impressive is the fact that he had no personal hostility or any political agenda. (You’d understand if I identified the person and his newspaper but I’m not going to do that.) This conclusion was simply taken as fact. He was astonished to hear that another perspective even existed.
My first response was to point down the street two corners to the place where a bus was blown up in 1995 and right next to it where a suicide bomber had killed about a dozen pedestrians around the same time. This was the result of risks and concessions that Israel had voluntarily undertaken in trying to achieve peace. And, I added, it was possible to supply a long list of other examples.
So despite Israel taking risks and making concessions, the Palestinian Authority rejected peace. Today the same group is going to be recognized by the UN as a regime governing a state. Moreover, this is a body that is relentlessly begging Hamas, a group that openly calls for genocide against both Israel and Jews, to join it.
Hamas, of course, ran for office without accepting the Oslo agreement (a violation of it) and then seized power in a coup. Since then it has rained rockets and missiles on Israel. In other words, although it is unlikely to happen, in a few months Hamas might become part of the official government of this non-member state of the UN.
Yet complaining about the unfairness of international behavior or the treatment of Israel, like complaining about one’s personal fate, doesn’t get you anywhere. It is cathartic to do so but then one must move on to more productive responses.
The second issue is whether it will really matter. Yes it entails symbolism, yes it will convince the Palestinians they are getting something when the course they have followed ensures they get pretty close to nothing. But, to use a Biblical phrase, it availeth them not. On the contrary, to coin a phrase, this move “counter-matters,” that is it is a substitute for productive action that actually detracts from the real goal.
To the extent that “President” Mahmoud Abbas convinced West Bank Palestinians that they have achieved some great victory it takes off the pressure for violent action or support for Hamas there. Of course, there is no popular pressure for a negotiated solution. Indeed, I’m not aware of a single Palestinian Authority official who has even claimed for cosmetic purposes that the reason for this move at the UN move is to press Israel to compromise or a deal. Its purpose is to make Abbas’s regime look good and be a step forward toward total victory, a Palestinian state unbound by commitments that could be used as a base for wiping out Israel.
But that doesn’t mean it will work. The next morning, the residents of the Palestinian Authority will still be exactly where they are now. Hangovers wear off even after non-alcoholic celebrations.
You should also understand that in Israel there are no illusions about this whole charade. Few think that a real deal is possible with either of the current Palestinian leaderships—those who do have already all written op-ed pieces in the New York Times—and the UN action will make the public even more opposed to concessions.
Incidentally, people on both sides in other countries make a serious mistake in assessing Israel. Its enemies think it evil; many of its friends think it stupid. Both are wrong. There are real constraints in the international system, including the current government of the United States.
The solution is not to rail against this fate verbally but to assess the best course in the context of these conditions. There are many who don’t comprehend the implications of this situation. They either think Israel should endlessly make concessions or that it should win total victory by ignoring the surrounding reality. It’s amusing to see those of various political hues who are thousands of miles away pulling theories from their heads that have nothing to do with the actual events.
At any rate, the UN General Assembly’s action neither contributes to peace nor is a just decision. Nevertheless, once again we have a case of symbolism over substance. This is the same General Assembly that received Yasir Arafat as a man of peace in 1974 at the very moment he was masterminding terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians and the following year voted for a resolution that Zionism was racism. Can one really say things have gotten worse?
During the period since then, Israel has survived and prospered. Its enemies in the Middle East have undergone constant instability and economic stagnation (except for those small in population and large in oilfields). The supposed springtime of democracy has quickly turned into just another authoritarian era of repression and disastrous policies that ultimately weaken those countries and make their people poor and miserable. What else is new?
Ignoring that history and the contemporary reality, some Western countries are voting for this resolution or abstaining for a variety of reasons: cheap public relations’ gain among Arabs and Muslims; a belief that this will shore up the Palestinian “moderates” against the radicals, or that it will encourage the non-existent peace process.
What it will do, however, is to sink the Palestinian leadership even deeper into an obsession with intransigence in practice and paper victories that mean nothing in the real world. And, yes, that’s what the result of this UN vote will be. And of course no matter what is said publicly about unity between the Fatah-ruled Palestinian Authority and the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip there will be no change on that front either.
In 1939, the British offered the Arab states and Palestinian leadership a deal in which they would be handed all of the Palestine mandate as an Arab state if they accepted a few simple conditions, including a ten year transition period. Despite the pleas of some Arab rulers, the Palestinians said no, believing a German victory would give them everything soon. Almost precisely 65 years ago the UN endorsed the creation of a Palestinian Arab state. The Palestinians said no believing that the military efforts of themselves and their allies would give them everything soon.
The Palestinians’ leaders have long believed that an intransigent strategy coupled with some outside force—Nazi Germany, the USSR, weaning the West away from Israel—will miraculously grant them total victory. They aren’t going to change course now but that route leads not forward but in circles.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
but that route leads not forward but in circles.”
Sorry, Dr. Rubin, but that just doesn’t wash.
They haven’t changed, and aren’t going to, yes.
But they’ve been going that route all along.
Relentlessly, ever since Mohammed, forward.
And they certainly do not intend to stop now.
Going in circles means futilely, to no end at all.
Can you honestly say they’ve gone nowhere?
Europe is soiling herself in fear of them today.
They want the whole world to submit or die.
Israel and the Jews are their prime target now.
The world’s body of nations gave them the nod.
They’ll go in circles only when beaten to dust.
Going in circles Dr. Rubin? Let’s examine the situation today as opposed to the situation almost half a century ago: June 11, 1967 the morrow of Israel’s greatest victory. Israel had just conquered the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and the entire Sinai Peninsula. It had gone from a tiny country with a decent military but largely indefensible (in the face of a serious concerted attack) borders to a country that spread from the Suez Canal almost to the outskirts of Damascus. This was the summit of the nation’s achievement and it has been all downhill from there. The Yom Kippur War eliminated the possibility of keeping the Sinai and eventually it was all given back to Egypt in exchange for a long truce that is now ending. Israel invaded Lebanon and laid siege to Beirut only to be driven back to its own borders. The government of Israel gave its enemies the run of a large swathe of territory in the heart of the country in the Oslo Accords and then fled from the Gaza Strip and now seems unable to go back even to defend itself from rocket attacks which means that armed enemies are now permanently ensconced in a base inside pre-1948 Mandatory Palestine. Now the world body gives de facto recognition to the division of the country which will of course not change anything tomorrow but will further erode Israel’s status at any negotiating table. Given the chronic weakness of Israel’s governments over the last quarter century with their willingness to run for cover at every opportunity I would definitely say that the Arabs have achieved something!
“unable to defend itself even fom rocket attacks”
I beg to differ.
Never before in combat has such a spectacular defence against missiles been poven.
The better the defenses get, the more pressure not to fight back, and to retreat behind those defenses.
Fast forward 50 years:
“A hundred years after the rebirth of the State of Israel, it has shrunk to a small state-let comprising the Tel-Aviv – Jerusalem corridor. It’s remaining citizens squat cheek by jowl under a dome shaped force field, watching Arab, Persian, and EU missiles explode against it, showering fire and sparks into the night. They worry that it is only a matter of time before the enemies figure out how to penetrate the shield, for then it will all be over. The economic elites, who were at the vanguard of the Left, had left 20 years prior, using their foreign passports and connections to escape, leaving their poorer brethren to their fate. So ends the experiment of ‘Land for Peace’, which Israel facilitated by its brilliance in low impact defensive weaponry.”
As empty gestures go, this one is a doozy. Bibi will have to punish the PA or look weak before the elections. This will of course put him at odds with the Obama administration.
If the PA decides to then initiate lawfare in the ICC, they will only further delegitimize the international judiciary.
It will be interesting to see if the Tibetan, Catalan, Scottish, Basque and Kurish movements try a similar strategy and if the nations that voted for PA (disorderly) statehood will regret the precedent they se.
What the success of the Abbas Palestinians in the UN means for becoming a state or, as Rubin says, continuing to be a non-state, all that is beyond my competency. I do think from my vantage point in Germany that a propaganda and sympathy achievement for the Palestinians has taken place in Germany. Not ten mintues ago I watched a cultural program on German tv and the event was noted and explained as an achievement of the intention of the UN resolution of 1947 calling for two states for two peoples. Well, the Jews got there state and now the Palestinians are just about getting theirs. (In this context the tv show, so to speak, gathered the blessing of the current pope in Rome noting his approval of the Palestinian victory.) Well, why has there been such a delay in this joyous event? No historical background given, none whatsoever. But, a comment was gained from an interview with the Israeli citizen Lizzie Doran (about whose political views I, not to speak, of Germans in general, know nothing). She was, let us say, the voice of Israel or, better, of a sympathetic Israel. The Israeli woman expressed her joy for the Palestinians, they finally got what they want. What stands in the way of the two people talking with each other? Well, the female Israeli communicated her attempts to visit the West Bank and, you would not be surprised, check-points and blockades hinder her from contacting Palestinians, sort of a face-to-face coming together. Everyone knows who has set up the check-points, etc. And why was this done? No mention of any “why”. But the impression is clear, the Israeli gov. is hindering a resolution of tension between the peoples. Germans ooze at the thought of getting together in a multicultural manner so that, by getting to know each other, problems are resolved. Oh, the female Israeli mentioned that she can talk with male Palestinians in East Jerusalem. She noted the unpleasant fact tha women must stay in the kitchen and do not enter into a conversation. What does this fact have to do with, say, Islam? No comment. The separaton of women within Islam would strike an unknowing German as but the outdated ways that were once in Germany before emancipation. What is the result of the Palestianin achievement? As of the moment, they have in Germany improved their image, gained sympathy, blurred history and Hamas remained unmentioned (as if Hamas might have something to do with tension). —All I have done in this comment is act as a reporter from Germany. The only good news is that it was mentioned that the US was not happy. But, do not fret, UN democracy has spoken and the German gov. abstained.
Europe is playing a waiting game. They think either Islam will implode and leave them alone or at some point a new Martel/ Hitler will arise and expel the Arab/Turk /Musulman from their midst. The harranging of Israel and the proPalestinian efforts are a smokescreen.
Alas, you are wrong in 2 counts with your view about Europeans, at least the Germans. 1) The most important point is that Germans do not want to fight, do not want a new Martel. This does not mean they want a triumph of Islam in Germany. It does mean that the basic stance of Germans since WW II is pacifistic. Only very reluctantly is the use of military an option. Those who do exercise this option, e.g., American post WW II, come in for criticism. Israel has, in my opinion, inherited the mantel of being an object of denigration because of its use of military force. In short, the will to survive is not there, if it means fighting in any sense near Martel’s “blessed” victory over the neo-paganism called Islam. 2) Do not associate Martel with Hitler. Hitler welcomed the then Arab leader in the Palestine area, a Mufti who wanted to kill Jews and even funded an SS Bosian division. A Hitler today would not oppose the attempts to end the existence of Israel.
Europe and the rest of the world have the delusion that yielding to Islamists’ demands may probably soften their (Islamists’) recalcitrance, ‘hoping they’d become moderates’ as what Prof Rubin mentioned as well one time, and that is unmistakably apparent. It is right what was observed, and just like the aforementioned reporter who interviewed him who scarce can differ one issue conflict from another, to so criticize the stand of one-state advocating Israelis for not budging is total injustice. One should stand for his advocacies, here is a conflict that goes beyond politics, one has to wrestle with history, heritage, age-old traditions. I believe the PA, the Islamists in general are in vicious circle for who and what they are, you can’t forever hand them luscious goodies terming it diplomatic aid, offering them a chunk of some people’s lands, pat them at the back and coo, “Be good there now.” They will remain the same, betraying each other, rivalry among their ranks, divisive and entirely disorganized. Germany for one, is really on charade, observers can’t trust her anymore. In the like of the US against Obama’s actual foreign policy, whom are they duping? Though the PA will be favored for more portion of Israel, they can not manage themselves let alone lives of their people.
You state that : “the UN offered a Palestinian state in 1947″. This is of course incorrect. The state offered by the UN in 1947 is the present day state of Jordan. The present day so-called Palestinians were never offered a state by the UN. The only offers of a state for the so-called Palestinians were made by a series of misguided and incompetent Israel politicians, including several prime ministers.
You are incorrect – Google Resolution 181. Two states were created in 1947 – an Arab State and a Jewish State – the Jewish state is smaller today’s Israel (if you assume their border is more-or-less 1967 armistice line. The “catastrophe” is that Arab leadership rejected this opportunity and attacked Israel.
To my mind, the big loser in this fiasco is the US. It’s carefully shepherded Oslo Accords are now officially dead. The Zu S now has no diplomatic influence what do ever. The Israelis can now go to each and every bonehead Western country that voted for this resolution and tell them to f*** off ( politely of course). They tried it their way and it went nowhere. Now it’s gloves off.
As for the Pals, they may be deluded that they have friends but they do not. Every regime in the area has its own problems to desk with. The Pals are at the bottom of the list. This will not end well.