Last week Mahmoud Abbas, Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and president of the West Bank, spoke before the UN general assembly after he submitted a bid for U.N. recognition of the Palestinian state. There has been much debate over the merits of this bold political move because it goes against the norms of direct negotiation that have dictated the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Through the lens of liberalism one can both establish support and opposition for the Palestinian’s statehood bid. It is interesting that one international relations theory can be used to back both sides of an argument. This contradiction displays the different uses for the theory of liberalism as well as the weakness of its inconsistency.
First let us address how liberalism can be used to endorse the Palestinian bid for statehood. The theory of liberalism supports the idea that the public will never choose war. Abbas asserted the presence of democracy in the future of the Palestinian people during his U.N. speech, “we have been strengthening what we seeking to be the features of our State:...the pillars of democracy as the basis for the Palestinian political life.” According the theory of liberalism this democratic development in Palestine would be beneficial not only for the Palestinians themselves, but for the region as a whole. Using this argument it is counterproductive for the Israelis to argue against the bid for statehood because a democratic Palestine would never choose war. The people would see the costs as too great and pursue paths of peace instead. Husam Zomlot, a senior official in Fatah’s Department of Foreign Relations and representative of the PLO at the 66th U.N. General Assembly, supplemented Abbas’ claim by asserting the peacefulness that would follow the creation of a Palestinian state, “legally, a Palestinian state is a deterrent weapon. We are not going to engage in attacks like Israel does. Our deterrent is international law” (Horesh).
Zomlot’s statement also connects to the second liberalist argument in favor of the creation of a Palestinian state: liberal institutionalism and an increase in reciprocity. Liberalism encompasses the idea that countries are less likely to turn to war if they have incentives not to, like collective security concerns, which come from inclusion in institutions like the U.N. There is also the notion that countries exposed to reciprocity will be less likely to choose war because it discourages the idea of zero sum international policy and encourages mutually beneficial options. In accordance with this idea Israel, and the international community, should support the admission of Palestine into the U.N. General Assembly because this would expose the Palestinians to reciprocity. Supposedly this would also forge bonds between Israel and Palestine because they would have collective concerns because they belong to the same organization.
This idea of endorsing the Palestinian bid for statehood based on the ideas of liberalism has even been utilized by American political figures. One such instance is the op-ed piece written by Keith Ellison, a democratic representative from Minnesota, “the Palestinian Authority, unlike Hamas, is pursuing statehood nonviolently and diplomatically now, so why are we discouraging its efforts?” Such claims and questions have merit, but they are challenged by another idea stemming from the theory of liberalism: the threat of radicals.
Liberalism asserts the peacefulness of democracy, but there is a flaw in this idea; if radicals take power it breaks the connection between the people and the government. The radicals do not listen to the will of the people, so it stops mattering weather the people choose violence or not. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed this potential issue in his speech in front of the U.N. General Assembly shortly after Abbas’ speech. Netanyahu spoke of how Israel made concessions, like the one he is being asked to do with the West Bank, in Lebanon and mainly Gaza. Netanyahu spoke of how radicals, not moderates, took over when Israel withdrew:
“Now the theory says it should all work out, and President Abbas and the Palestinian Authority now could build a peaceful state in Gaza. You can remember that the entire world applauded. They applauded our withdrawal as an act of great statesmanship. It was a bold act of peace. But ladies and gentlemen, we didn't get peace. We got war. We got Iran, which through its proxy Hamas promptly kicked out the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority collapsed in a day -- in one day.”
Netanyahu went on to suggest that radicals could also take control of the West Bank if the UN recognized it as a state before security negations had been completed when he discussed the channels through which radical influence and militarism leaks into the area, “President Abbas just said on this podium that the Palestinians are armed only with their hopes and dreams. Yeah, hopes, dreams and 10,000 missiles and Grad rockets supplied by Iran, not to mention the river of lethal weapons now flowing into Gaza from the Sinai, from Libya, and from elsewhere.”
The threat of radical take over of a future Palestinian state is accented by the division between the PLO and Hamas. “In the days before Abbas' U.N. speech, Hamas banned all public shows of support for the Palestinian president. Hamas alleged the edict had the support of Fatah, ostensibly to avoid friction, although some Fatah leaders in Gaza denied they had agreed to stay off the streets. In the end, only a tiny PLO faction rallied for Abbas” (Laub). This lack of unity implies that there would be a struggle to establish control of a newly established Palestine. Hamas already won control over Gaza, what is there to suggest that Abbas, often seen as a weak leader, would gain control of the state instead? If Hamas were to control the Palestinian state, the public would not have a say in government dealings, and therefore the people’s abhorrence of war would not matter.
Liberalism can be used both to endorse and to oppose U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state. More than finding an answer, this case study seems to find weakness in the contradictory nature of the theory. Though liberalism can be used to analyze the different aspects of an issue, it gets one no closer to finding a solution. Further case studies could establish if this is a constant problem with liberalism or a rarity.
Works Cited
Ellison, Keith. "Support the Palestinian Bid for Statehood." NYTimes.com. The New York Times, 22 Sept. 2011. Web. 30 Sept. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/opinion/support-the-palestinian-bid-for-statehood.html?_r=1>.
"Full Transcript of Abbas Speech at UN General Assembly - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News." Israel News - Haaretz Israeli News Source. Haaretz, 23 Sept. 2011. Web. 30 Sept. 2011. <http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/full-transcript-of-abbas-speech-at-un-general-assembly-1.386385>.
"Full Transcript of Netanyahu Speech at UN General Assembly - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News." Israel News - Haaretz Israeli News Source. Haaretz, 24 Sept. 2011. Web. 30 Sept. 2011. <http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/full-transcript-of-netanyahu-speech-at-un-general-assembly-1.386464>.
Horesh, Roxanne. "Debating the UN Bid for Palestinian Statehood - Features - Al Jazeera English." AJE - Al Jazeera English. Al Jazeera, 19 Sept. 2011. Web. 30 Sept. 2011. <http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/09/201191910126371759.html>.
Laub, Karin. "Analysis: UN Speech Gives Abbas a Stronger Hand | World News | The Guardian." Latest News, Sport and Comment from the Guardian | The Guardian. Associated Press, 27 Sept. 2011. Web. 30 Sept. 2011. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/9866804>.
First off, I think you did a good job showing both sides of this issue and giving reasons for and against the Palestine statehood bid. I know relatively little about this conflict and I always love reading more information about it. However there were a few assumptions which jumped out at me. The first was that liberal theory states that democracies do not choose war and therefore Israel should approve of the bid because a democratic Palestine would not choose war. I do not agree with this argument because it assumes that if Palestine receives statehood they will become democratic. I don't believe that receiving membership would alter their government to such a large extent. This also implies that if Palestine was given membership that it would improve relations between Israel and Palestine. I also disagree with this because whether Palestine is considered a legitimate state or not they will still have to work through the problems which they currently face.
ReplyDeleteAlso you argue that their is a flaw in the theory of liberalism which states that democracies do not choose piece. You argue that this is flawed because if radicals take power of a government they will not listen to their constituents. I disagree with this statement because if radicals take power in a true democracy it is because they have been elected and placed there by the will of the people. Therefore if a population has more radical tendencies and their head of state acts in a similar way they are not ignoring their constituents but reflecting the will of the people.
I made the assumption that a Palestinian state would at least start by trying to implement democracy because that is what has been promised. (I put in a quote of some of those promises from Abbas' speech, but there are more if you look at the full speech.) There have been elections in Palestine already though they have been divided because of the rift between the West Bank and Gaza. I am not analyzing the issue from my personal perspective but rather the liberal one. Liberalism suggests that democratic countries connected by reciprocity will get along. I personally do not think Israelis and Palestinians will set aside their differences if they are both in the U.N.
ReplyDeleteThe point I made about radicals was drawn from the discussion we had in class. We talked about how radicals can cut off the government from the people. Though Hamas was elected democratically in Gaza, I don't think they would just sit back and let Abbas take power of a united Palestinian state (which includes Gaza). Hamas is militant and might forcibly take power (this is just speculation of course).
I don't know if the threat of a radical takeover is necessarily part of the liberal theory - rather, it seems more like a weakness in the liberal theory. You even seem to take this position by saying, "Liberalism asserts the peacefulness of democracy, but there is a flaw in this idea..." A radical government wouldn't be a liberal one, so is it even possible to apply liberalism to this aspect of the argument?
ReplyDeleteMoreover, there's no guarantee a democratic Palestinian government would be a peaceful one. The United States is democratic, but we have been almost constantly involved in wars somewhere since our inception. Like you said, you don't think Israelis and Palestinians will said aside their differences even if they are in the UN. True, pure liberalism argues that democracies will not fight, but will making Palestine a democracy lead to enough international pressure to stop the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? Unlikely. As you said, this seems to show liberalism's weaknesses more than its strengths. We can't apply these broad theories to specific situations and expect them to work. The real world doesn't work like the theoretical one - there are more factors in play.
I agree that the liberal theory doesn't account for radical take overs, which hinder the peacefulness of a democracy. This is an issue we discussed in conjunction with the theory, but the liberal theory does not directly address it. I also agree that the theory does not effectively explain the specifics of situations. That was my point with the case study. The theory can be applied in multiple ways to analyze the situation and be used to argue both sides. This shows that it as an analytical tool more than a way to find a solution to real, complex problems.
ReplyDelete