Palestine: A One-State Solution?
21/10/2011 3:31:59 PM Isheeka Goswami
A blog post by Isheeka Goswami*.
There has been talk of the potential for warmer relations between Israel and Palestine following the 1–for–1000 prisoner swap that this week flooded our television screens and newspapers with euphoric images of families reunited after years of uncertainty and trauma. The media has renewed its interest in two-state negotiations in the lead-up to the October 26 Middle East Quartet meeting in Jerusalem. As Palestine’s bid for statehood in the United Nations Security Council inches nearer to a November conclusion, the flickering potential of forward momentum is claiming the spotlight again.
But it has been dampened by claims from Hamas that the prisoner swap illuminates not a future of negotiations but the belief that all Hamas has to do to assert authority over Israel is continue to capture Israeli soldiers and demand Palestinian prisoners in return. And, to further solidify doubt that the prisoner swap achieved any symbolic progress, Israeli settlers yesterday destroyed thousands of Palestinian olive trees, equivalent to a loss of about USD $500,000 in income. The question of whether Palestine is growing any closer to achieving statehood still hangs in the balance, and as Israel continues its offensive, Palestine’s efforts in the UN appear to magnify in significance.
It is not the recognition of a state by the UN that makes it a state. Statehood is ultimately predicated on more concrete factors, stability of government and territory being paramount among them. Recognition is merely reflective of these factors, not constitutive. The post-war emergence of newly independent countries such as Croatia, Kenya and Sri Lanka occurred not because it was expedient for other countries to recognise them, but because of their own inherent self-determination. Their independence came about through unity of government and a willingness of the states that dominated them to negotiate a solution for a new era.
Today’s Palestine is characterised by conflict, chronic aid dependency and economic collapse — the consequences of an absence of civilian-oriented governance. As Hamas and the PLO focus on external political and military strategy in the ongoing conflict with Israel, the Palestinian population remains in a state of crisis, their basic needs in terms of health, food and water not being met by the forces that represent them. A continued reliance on foreign assistance to keep its people alive leaves Palestine devoid of the fundamental independence that statehood requires.
Though the US veto in the UN Security Council will nullify the Palestinian bid for statehood, the unilateral move of going through the UN presents two competing issues. On the one hand, the UN bid presents Palestine with the opportunity to participate on the international stage with more legitimacy than it has ever done before. Even with a US veto, a positive recommendation from the UN Membership Committee would have a normative impact in terms of recognising Palestinian state institutions. And Palestine could go on to seek an upgrade to ‘observer state’ status (like that of the Vatican) from a mere ‘observer entity’ in the UN General Assembly, which would be an indirect recognition of statehood.
But on the other hand, two-state negotiations with Israel remain vital for Palestinian statehood to garner support from powerful international actors such as the United States and to achieve any kind of lasting legitimacy. And unless Israel’s political leaders engage in active negotiations, Palestinian statehood will amount to little more than symbolism and genuine Israeli dominance in the form of settlements and warfare will prevail.
There is therefore a tension between the practical need for a two-state solution and the rhetorical importance of a unilateral, self-deterministic Palestinian move for statehood. Without the former, it is difficult to see how the latter will be meaningful. For this reason, the hostility that continues to rage between Israel and Palestine following the prisoner swap must be seen as cautionary. A solution between the two states continues to lie with them and not with the international community. But the international community retains the powerful ability to legitimate Palestine just as it has done for other independent states emerging from war. The challenge ultimately lies in each actor in this ongoing struggle playing the part that is required of them.
*Isheeka Goswami a guest blogger for Act for Peace. She holds a Bachelor of International and Global Studies and is currently studying the Juris Doctor at the University of Sydney. She has been a volunteer at the immigration detention centres on Christmas Island. The views contained herein are personal to her and do not necessarily reflect those of the NCCA or Act for Peace.
Comments
Comments are submitted by members of the public and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of Act For Peace. If you find a comment objectionable please contact the
web editor.