https://arab.news/8jkkb
Western countries’ recognition of Palestinian statehood is like a London bus — you wait ages for one and then three come along at once. It still baffles me why this has taken 45 years since the now nearly forgotten Venice Declaration of 1980, in which the nine member states of the European Community, the forerunner of the EU, recognized the right of Palestinian self-determination, and then an horrific war during which, slowly and with hesitant steps, a number of member states have taken this step.
The most recent change of heart has seen France, the UK, Malta, and Portugal, in addition to Canada, expressing their intention to recognize a Palestinian state. Historically, they are very much behind the curve, as by now 147 out of the 193 members of the UN have already recognized Palestinian statehood. But this is better late than never, especially as France, the UK, and Canada are the first G7 members to do so. In the case of the first two, they are also permanent members of the UN Security Council, leaving the US isolated in its rejection of such a move. This makes it more than just a symbolic gesture, but a significant message from major international powers, especially if it signals proactive involvement in advancing a peace process.
The question that should be asked is not why more countries are currently recognizing Palestinians statehood, but why it has taken them so long, lagging behind the rest of the world? Long before the horrific events of the past 22 months, the process of bringing peace between Israelis and Palestinians based on a two-state solution was stuck, a complete and utter stalemate. Since the US Secretary of State John Kerry’s peace initiative collapsed in 2014, almost every single development has been detrimental to ending the conflict, and it now needs a game-changer to prompt new thinking on how to restart negotiations that will conclude a deal on a two-state solution.
Most of the world, including those who have not recognized a Palestinian state, agrees that the only viable solution to this never-ending conflict is of two states, Israel and Palestine, coexisting peacefully side by side. Since the Madrid process in 1991 and the Oslo Accords two years later, the working assumption was that recognition of a Palestinian state would be the outcome of successful peace negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians that were supposed to be completed after an interim period of five years. However, this has never materialized. Instead, in the intervening years, what has emerged, by design and by default, are conditions unfavorable to such an outcome, while those who oppose it have gained the upper hand, mainly by using coercion. The international community increasingly took a bystander’s position regarding this conflict and, tragically, let it slide to where it is at this moment in time.
Recognizing a Palestinian state now means reversing the order of, first, resolving all the outstanding issues between the two sides, including borders, refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, security arrangements, and other bilateral and multilateral issues, and then international recognition of a Palestinian state. What was supposed to become an incentive to successfully conclude peace negotiations has become an obstacle. It has underlined the asymmetry in the power relations between Israel and the Palestinians, and their utter mutual distrust, leading to unrealistic expectations on both sides.
On the Israeli side, sometimes consciously, sometimes subconsciously, too many decision-makers have not entirely come to terms with accepting a Palestinian state next door, whether for ideological or security reasons; on the Palestinian side, on the rare occasions that Israeli leaders have been ready to accept a Palestinian state, they have felt short-changed by the terms of the agreement, or have got cold feet.
The question that should be asked is not why more countries are currently recognizing Palestinians statehood, but why it has taken them so long, lagging behind the rest of the world?
Yossi Mekelberg
International recognition of a Palestinian state is not the silver bullet for achieving the two-state solution, but it is an important step for the international community to reiterate that this is a conflict between two sovereign entities, albeit one still not fully formed, that have equal rights to self-determination, but also equal responsibility to bring to an end the conflict between them.
It would have had more impact if the decision to recognize Palestinian statehood by France, UK, and Canada had been announced jointly. Nevertheless, events have still generated a certain momentum that could see more countries following them between now and the actual declaration of recognition due to take place at the General Assembly in New York in September. Additionally, declaring such a recognition from the podium of the General Assembly provides it with the highest level of legitimacy short of ultimate recognition by the Security Council, something that is still being blocked by Washington.
However, the regrettable lack of enthusiasm for this move, or the fear of a US response, has somehow led the UK and Canada to diverge from France’s approach of unconditionally recognizing Palestinian statehood. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced that the UK will recognize a Palestinian state in September, unless Israel “takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agrees to a ceasefire and commits to a long-term, sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two-state solution,” and this includes allowing the UN to restart the supply of aid, and making clear that there will be no annexations in the West Bank.
It was obvious that Israel would not accept these conditions; however, it put a negative twist on the issue by presenting recognition as some sort of punishment of Israel, not as a positive and necessary decision to change the dynamic between the two antagonists. Canada’s Prime Minister, Mark Carney, has said that his country’s recognition depends on democratic reforms of the Palestinian Authority and on elections being held next year without Hamas. The timeline is somewhat problematic, as this can hardly be done in a meaningful manner in a matter of few weeks.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu immediately rebuked the suggestion, as one would expect, and claimed that to recognize Palestine as a state was to reward Hamas and terrorism. This argument does not hold water, as the Arab League has also called for the disarming of Hamas. This is about empowering the moderates of both sides to work together for a brighter future for Israelis and Palestinians. Netanyahu would have responded in the very same way had this recognition taken place before Oct. 7, with his constant unsubstantiated whinging that any criticism of Israel or support for Palestinians’ right to self-determination is anti-Israeli and antisemitic, and hence should not be taken seriously.
However, recognition is not the “be all and end all” for solving this conflict, but one important step toward peace in the Middle East which, if followed through with a concerted international commitment to initiate a meaningful peace with clear objectives and deadlines, might just change the course of the history of this conflict.
• Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg