There are all sorts of wrangling regarding the Palestinian Authority’s request for statehood. The UN is dealing with the request, which will take several weeks, if not months to debate before making a final decision on the matter. Some countries are abstaining from it altogether making suggestions along the way. Worse still, others (Israel and the United States) are predicting doom (as if it wasn’t already here) and the Obama administration is threatening to exercise its power of veto to prevent the aspirations of the Palestinians from materializing. So much for the US’s even-handed approach in the process. This analysis from The Associated Press gives you a pretty good idea of how uphill the way for the Palestinians is from here.
Putting predictions of debacle aside, I ask critics of Abbas’ petition at the UN what else could have been done? There is intransigence from both sides (Palestinian authorities, old and new, are not exempt from responsibility in this diplomatic mess), an unwillingness to find a political solution that would allow these two entities to cohabit in relative peace.
Security concerns, especially for the Israeli right, supersedes political dialogue with the Palestinians. It also supersedes democratic, societal, and economic concerns. Recent protests in the State of Israel were displaced from media despite considerable turnout in numbers and expressions of solidarity from diverse sectors of Israeli society. There is always an imaginary of fear present, a possible bomb, another militant attack, and as such Israel cannot – will not, really – accept such a diversion. Truly sad: a political coalition that cannot articulate everyday policy to address the burdens of ordinary Israelis. But the precedent is set, and as Naddad Eyal has written: ‘the protests [have] changed the national conversation’.
One other thing displaces, not by much, security policy and that is extremist religious ideology. Separation of religion and state is not evident in Israel and the power wield of extremist religious groups allows for them to hold governments hostage. I believe this trend is what is behind settlement construction in the occupied territories, seeing no other explanations as to why successive administrations have pursued such a counterproductive policy for so long and why we encounter such fanaticism among settlers. In essence, there are not only physical settlements being built but also existential ones. It is all part of the imagined community that is Israel, and one that secular, democratic, and peace-loving Israelis must confront. A frank conversation is needed here and a honest debate on the ever-changing nature and limits of the national project. The same way most people, Palestinians included, have accepted - grudgingly, mind you – that Israel exists, so Israelis must come to terms that, if they want peace they must re-imagine their nation as one that embraces diversity internally, and peaceful co-existence with those with whom it shares its geopolitical space.
With regards to the Palestinians and their aspirations for statehood there is perhaps no better juncture than this. It was also the only course of action left to them, not only because of Israeli reluctance, but also because of self-inflicted wounds and critical errors made in the last decade. I just want to point out the gross failure on the part of Yasser Arafat and his entourage to act decisively in the Camp David Summit of 2000. It is my contention that a Palestinian state could have risen then and there, one born in a pre-9/11 context with little baggage and prejudice. A monumental opportunity was lost. From this point forward the political game, for Palestinians took a turn for the worst. Extreme political organizations and groups often come to being or are strengthened by the lack of ability of mainstream political-movements (I’m assuming this role for Fatah and the PLO since the 1993 Oslo Accords) to articulate ground-breaking solutions and everyday policy that would make life for ordinary Palestinians less uncomfortable. Frustration and despair are contagious and people in this state are often taken, and tolerant with, organisations that offers other possibilities. Hamas feeds from this.
To be sure, the move towards the recognition of a Palestinian state changes the dynamics of the Geopolitical game. As the AP article says, ‘it changes the paradigm’. Indeed! The mere move indicates Palestinian willingness to occupy a political space from which it has been historically marginalized, feeding on the crumbs of world, and Arab, solidarity that have offered them little in return. That is, they are – now -, to the world and reluctant Israeli authorities, political subjects. It is important then not to belittle the gesture that took place on September 23, 2011, this is the day when Palestinians went from being Ζοο έξω πολιτική, or a subject outside of politics and the political, to becoming Ζοον πολιτικον, or political subject. As such, they carry a strengthened legitimacy, even if it is a symbolical one (worst-case scenario, Palestinian Authority status at the UN is enhanced) that Israelis and, by extension Americans, will have to deal with, if not recognize.
Perhaps it was the necessary gesture, the one that needed to happen in order to move forward. The rest is up to the negotiating parties, building a political solution that will usher them away from the state of nature. We’ll see.
abbas, Diplomacy, ir, Israel, netanyahu, Palestine, palestinian_authority, palestinian_statehood, UN, United_Nations, un_security_council, us, us_foreign_policy
The bid for Palestinian Statehood and the crisis of Israeli statehood
In academic_commentary, history, IR, political_commentary on September 25, 2011 at 4:00 amThere are all sorts of wrangling regarding the Palestinian Authority’s request for statehood. The UN is dealing with the request, which will take several weeks, if not months to debate before making a final decision on the matter. Some countries are abstaining from it altogether making suggestions along the way. Worse still, others (Israel and the United States) are predicting doom (as if it wasn’t already here) and the Obama administration is threatening to exercise its power of veto to prevent the aspirations of the Palestinians from materializing. So much for the US’s even-handed approach in the process. This analysis from The Associated Press gives you a pretty good idea of how uphill the way for the Palestinians is from here.
Putting predictions of debacle aside, I ask critics of Abbas’ petition at the UN what else could have been done? There is intransigence from both sides (Palestinian authorities, old and new, are not exempt from responsibility in this diplomatic mess), an unwillingness to find a political solution that would allow these two entities to cohabit in relative peace.
Security concerns, especially for the Israeli right, supersedes political dialogue with the Palestinians. It also supersedes democratic, societal, and economic concerns. Recent protests in the State of Israel were displaced from media despite considerable turnout in numbers and expressions of solidarity from diverse sectors of Israeli society. There is always an imaginary of fear present, a possible bomb, another militant attack, and as such Israel cannot – will not, really – accept such a diversion. Truly sad: a political coalition that cannot articulate everyday policy to address the burdens of ordinary Israelis. But the precedent is set, and as Naddad Eyal has written: ‘the protests [have] changed the national conversation’.
One other thing displaces, not by much, security policy and that is extremist religious ideology. Separation of religion and state is not evident in Israel and the power wield of extremist religious groups allows for them to hold governments hostage. I believe this trend is what is behind settlement construction in the occupied territories, seeing no other explanations as to why successive administrations have pursued such a counterproductive policy for so long and why we encounter such fanaticism among settlers. In essence, there are not only physical settlements being built but also existential ones. It is all part of the imagined community that is Israel, and one that secular, democratic, and peace-loving Israelis must confront. A frank conversation is needed here and a honest debate on the ever-changing nature and limits of the national project. The same way most people, Palestinians included, have accepted - grudgingly, mind you – that Israel exists, so Israelis must come to terms that, if they want peace they must re-imagine their nation as one that embraces diversity internally, and peaceful co-existence with those with whom it shares its geopolitical space.
With regards to the Palestinians and their aspirations for statehood there is perhaps no better juncture than this. It was also the only course of action left to them, not only because of Israeli reluctance, but also because of self-inflicted wounds and critical errors made in the last decade. I just want to point out the gross failure on the part of Yasser Arafat and his entourage to act decisively in the Camp David Summit of 2000. It is my contention that a Palestinian state could have risen then and there, one born in a pre-9/11 context with little baggage and prejudice. A monumental opportunity was lost. From this point forward the political game, for Palestinians took a turn for the worst. Extreme political organizations and groups often come to being or are strengthened by the lack of ability of mainstream political-movements (I’m assuming this role for Fatah and the PLO since the 1993 Oslo Accords) to articulate ground-breaking solutions and everyday policy that would make life for ordinary Palestinians less uncomfortable. Frustration and despair are contagious and people in this state are often taken, and tolerant with, organisations that offers other possibilities. Hamas feeds from this.
To be sure, the move towards the recognition of a Palestinian state changes the dynamics of the Geopolitical game. As the AP article says, ‘it changes the paradigm’. Indeed! The mere move indicates Palestinian willingness to occupy a political space from which it has been historically marginalized, feeding on the crumbs of world, and Arab, solidarity that have offered them little in return. That is, they are – now -, to the world and reluctant Israeli authorities, political subjects. It is important then not to belittle the gesture that took place on September 23, 2011, this is the day when Palestinians went from being Ζοο έξω πολιτική, or a subject outside of politics and the political, to becoming Ζοον πολιτικον, or political subject. As such, they carry a strengthened legitimacy, even if it is a symbolical one (worst-case scenario, Palestinian Authority status at the UN is enhanced) that Israelis and, by extension Americans, will have to deal with, if not recognize.
Perhaps it was the necessary gesture, the one that needed to happen in order to move forward. The rest is up to the negotiating parties, building a political solution that will usher them away from the state of nature. We’ll see.