The creation of a Palestinian state has been one of the most
pressing issues in international relations since the creation of Israel in
1948. In that year following the Second World War, the British, at the end of
their empire, withdrew from the mandate (here meaning “colony”) of Palestine.
The United Nations, which was chartered in 1945, partitioned the area into an
Arab state and a Jewish state (what is now Israel). However, this arrangement
was rejected by the Arabs (namely the Arab League). Shortly after Israel was
admitted into the United Nations on May 11, 1948, Arab military forces
attempted an invasion of the young Jewish state on May 15. The military force
consisted of Egyptians, Iraqis, Transjordanians, Syrians, Lebanese and a small
number of Saudi Arabian and Yemeni troops. Every state except Saudi Arabia and
Yemen committed several thousand troops each to the assault. It is no
exaggeration that Israel claims it was attacked from all sides in what is now
known to them as the Israeli War of Independence and to the rest of the world
as the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Israel not only repelled its invaders, but also
annexed much of what was to be the Arab state of Palestine as defined by the
United Nations. The only parts of Palestine that remained Arab were the Gaza
Strip and the West Bank.
In 1967 after Arab-Israeli relations once again
broke down, Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt, Jordan and
Syria. Israel successfully defeated the combined Arab armies and taken control
of the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula (which was later returned under the terms
of the Camp David Accords in 1978) from Egypt, the West Bank from Jordan and
East Jerusalem (which was previously annexed by Jordan). By the end of the war,
over one million Palestinians in the occupied territories came under Israeli
rule and hundreds of thousands more became refugees. These conflicts have set
overwhelming precedent for discord in the region between the state of Israel
and Palestinian factions.
Though Israel has withdrawn from the Gaza Strip,
there has been an enormous push in the Arab world for the creation of a
Palestinian state. In fact, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has recently
put a bid for the recognition of an independent Palestinian state. Even though
United Nations Security Council is meeting today to debate the issue, Abbas’
request has been viewed as largely symbolic since the United States has vowed
to veto such a bid. President Obama has stated that while he is in favor of the
creation of a Palestinian state, he stipulates that Israel must be part of the
process.
While the Palestinian bid for statehood will
probably not result in the creation of a Palestine, it is still of considerable
interest in the field of international relations. The United Nations and the idea
of self-determination are the bread and butter of liberal perspective. One may
ask how they could fail to create the state of Palestine when applied together.
The answer lies in the ideas of liberalism itself.
Liberal Institutionalism, a branch of liberalism,
is grounded in the idea that international institutions provide collective
security. Collective security is the notion that when states cooperate they can
provide greater security and protection for each other than any can provide for
themselves individually. Collective security and by extension Liberal
Institutionalism is exemplified by the United Nations, which exists for the
expressed purpose “to unite our strength to maintain international peace and
security” as stated in the preamble of its charter. Herein lies the answer to
why the United Nations would deny self-determination to a democratic
administration. An independent Palestine would create a significant security
problem in the Middle East. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed
the United Nations about the Palestinian bid for statehood, remarking that
Abbas is pursuing a “state without peace” and that Palestinians are armed not
only with “hopes and dreams" (a phrased used by Abbas when he addressed
the United Nations), but with "10,000 missiles, and Grad rockets supplied
by Iran, not to mention the river of lethal weapons flowing into Gaza." It
would remiss to not note that the Gaza Strip is currently governed by Hamas,
which has been recognized as a terrorist group by the United States and the
European Union.
Abbas’ statehood attempt perfectly outlines a
collective goods problem in the world today. It would be in the best interest
of both Israel and the Palestinian people come to a two-state solution and both
parties have expressed this fact. However, neither party trusts the other and
therefore an agreement has not yet been reached. To resolve the issue, both
Israel and the United States favor reciprocity in pursuit of a Palestinian
state rather than bypassing Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and going directly
to the United Nations. Reciprocity in international relations simply states
that every favorable and unfavorable action by a state should be returned in
kind. In this situation, reciprocity entails a series of treaties and
discussions to create a two-state solution in which Israel is recognized as a
Jewish state. Essentially, Israel demands that the Palestinians scratch its
back and guarantee its security before it returns the favor and recognizes
their statehood.
Ironically, what is blocking liberalism from
effectively creating a Palestinian state is Palestinian state. The United
Nations cannot act upon the principle of self-determination without creating a
collective security problem for Israel and the Middle East and violating the
principle of reciprocity in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. So an
obvious question remains: where do we go on from here? While the Palestinian
bid for statehood does not necessitate a failure of liberalist theory, the fact
remains that sixty-three years have passed and there is still not a Palestine.
When the President Abbas approached the United Nations I imagine that he was
thinking, “If not now, when?” While the United States and Israel press for
reciprocity in the form of concessions and peace talks, it clearly has not
worked in the six decades it has been applied. Palestine cannot be faulted for
trying a different avenue of statehood.
Sources
I completely agree with you when you say that collective security is a big, questionable variable in this predicament. Because Israel and the PA cannot cooperate, and it has been proven in countless attacks that Israel is facing a security threat from her neighbors in Gaza, the recognition of a Palestinian state will benefit no one. You mention that when states cooperate they can provide greater security and protection for each other, but do you really believe that will ever be the case between Israel and Palestine? I believe that there will never be collective security between the two, just merely a coexistence and recognition between the two countries.
ReplyDeleteSince reciprocity does not seem to help in this dilemma, is there a different collective goods foundation where the Israelis and Palestinians should base their negotiations - identity or power?
The question of whether there could ever be collective security between Israel and Palestine did pop in my mind when I was writing this paper, but that idea can be discussed at length by itself. While I do agree that currently this could never be the case between them, I would not use the word 'never' to describe their relationship. Israel, by its nature, demands a sense of security, whether by reciprocity or by force, in all of its dealings. I cannot imagine that they would ever allow Palestine to exist without some form of guaranteed security.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your other question, identity is definitely out of the question. The reason this conflict has become so entrenched is because of the incongruity of the Palestinian and Israeli identities. This obviously leaves power. Israel, as exemplified by the Six-Days War, definitely asserts its power militarily in the name of self-defense. I believe that if Israeli-Palestinian negotiations are ever to be successful, they will fall into this dynamic where Israeli asserts its dominance in the bargaining process. This idea also constitutes a degree of reciprocity as well so I believe a successful two-state solution will be a mixture of the two principles.
One idea that I've heard thrown around, and that I can't help but wonder over, is that it might actually be beneficial to regional security if Palestine was recognized as a state. Doing so would make Palestine subject to UN sanctions and other forms of retaliation if it threatened Israel's security. It's difficult to sanction a nation that does not exist, and thus perhaps the inexistence of a Palestinian state actually poses its own threat to Israeli security. I don't know that I actually believe this to be true; I agree that some accord needs to be reached between Israel and Palestine before the UN accepts the latter's bid for statehood. However, I cannot see such an accord being reached in the near future, if history is anything to go by...
ReplyDeleteSomething else that might be worthy of thought: Because it was basically understood that the US would veto Palestine's bid, why did countries like India, China, Russia, and Pakistan side with Palestine? We touched on this in class; do you agree that they may have sided with Palestine just to make the IS look bad when it vetoed the motion?
I believe there's some wariness on Israel's part towards the effectiveness of UN sanctions which is reflected in the current situation between Israel and Iran and its nuclear program. The ultimate goal is to create a Palestinian state either way. It would benefit Israel more to have it go through them first.
ReplyDeleteWhile I believe most of the countries sided with Palestine just to discredit the US as a superpower, I still do believe there is more at play. Pakistan as a fellow Muslim country identify with the Palestinian struggle. Additionally, Pakistan and India are familiar with living as second-class citizens in their own respective countries under British rule. In that respect, I believe the identity principle is largely involved here.
I think that the main problem facing Israel and Palestine in the future is one off escalation, demonstrated through the realist security dilemma. Specifically, Israel and Palestine/Arab supporter states form a bipolar power struggle. They are engaged not so much in an arms race, but in a situation where each move by either side is matched by a larger and more aggressive move on the other side.
ReplyDeleteWould you agree that Israel and Palestine are currently lodged in a security dilemma? And if they are, then would a unilateral intervention from a hegemon (such as the US) be more effective than the current approach, which is more focused around multilateral, cooperative resolutions?