Introduction
Considering the circumstances the Palestinian scene is currently experiencing, and the constant disputes regarding the proposed political agendas intended to reach a common main goal, which is an independent sovereign Palestinian state, with all aspects and meanings of that term, we must go back to the basics and roots of this issue, using them as a base to reach, as much as possible, an agenda that is balanced and harmonious in light of most of the political disagreements on the Palestinian scene, on the one hand, and the hopes and aspirations of the Palestinian people on the other.
First, to effectively deal with any issue that requires a solution, one must identify the root cause of the issue and define its limitations and aspects. When discussing the Palestinian cause, I see only one cause to the problem, which is the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. This is undisputed, at least from the Palestinians' perspective. Hence, the problem is the presence of occupation, and the solution is to remove that occupation and liberate the lands. Despite there being a disagreement as to what constitutes the occupied territory and its borders, I would state here that the occupied territory is the entirety of the historic Palestine, with an area of approximately 26,990 km2, and stretches from Galilee in the north to the coast of Aqaba in the south, and from the Jordan River and Wadi Araba in the east to the Mediterranean Sea and the Sinai in the west. However, for the sake of keeping on studying the possible solutions based on the current data given, we shall assume that the goal is to free what is now termed the ‘lands of ‘67', which is the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as stipulated in various United Nations resolutions, and to establish a Palestinian state on these liberated lands.
At this point, we must stop at some basic principles, which are occupation, liberation, and authority, and start with what it constitutes in practice of sovereignty and the forming of governments, to string these principles together as an introduction to clarify the current reality, putting it within its proper language and terminology perspective, thus within its realistic practice. Occupation, clearly defined, is a situation in which a particular power seizes control of a piece of land against the will of its original owners or occupants, as well as the practices involved in the process of taking control of this land. According to the definition laid out in the Hague Convention of 1907,[1] the "territory is considered occupied, when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."[2] If we were to take these aforementioned definitions of occupation and apply them to the existing situation in Palestine, we would have no choice but to admit that all Palestinian lands fall under effective Israeli occupation, and that the divisions of lands in the West Bank, according to the Oslo Accords, into sections A, B, and C are nothing but fictional. Even section A, which is supposed to be under total Palestinian authority, is still accessible to the Israeli military, where they can carry out raids to arrest people and occasionally demolish houses, let alone their ability to seize complete and utter control of it at any time they so choose. This is due to the Palestinian Authority's lack of ability to deter them if need be.
Moving on to define the current concept of state or nation, I have found, after much research, that the easiest and most appropriate definition is one that steers clear of any philosophical analysis of the term, and defines a state as being a sovereign and exclusive community that is representative of all members of society. The state is an ethical personality that enforces its rule over the land and supervises the exploitation and distribution of resources fairly and equally. All other authorities that run its various institution affairs emerge from it. It is considered the protector and guarantor of the rights of individuals and groups without exception, in return for their loyalty and duty to their obligations.
However, according to the United Nations, a bid for statehood and membership in the United Nations must come from an entity that meets the standard definition of state under international law in accordance with the Montevideo Convention agreement on Rights and Duties of States, which was adopted by the Seventh International Conference of American States in 1933.[3] As for the admission of Palestine to UN membership, it should be mentioned that in order for a new state to come into existence, it must meet the criteria of the above-mentioned convention qualifications: "(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; (d) capacity to enter into relations with other states."[4]
This means that to prove the existence of such a state it must have authority over the land and its resources, on the one hand, and the ability to protect this land and maintain the security and rights of its citizens, on the other, in order for the people to carry out their duties towards that state with loyalty and obedience to implement the other provisions of the Convention.
Here, one must make a distinction, though, between two main points: 1) the difference between a sense of belonging to a state or nation, which is not dictated by the existence of an authority and its ability to control the land and its resources, and 2) a compliance with the authority, which requires justice and provides safety and security to the citizens in order to justifiably ask them in return for loyalty and obedience. To clarify, every citizen feels and believes in their country's specific identity, and in the Arab identity in general. Therefore, Palestinians belong to Palestine, Jordanians to Jordan and so forth. This is how we all feel about our belonging obligations towards our pan-Arabism and nationalism. However, when speaking about loyalty, we find ourselves conflicted, for we do not feel the same sense of loyalty toward the governing regimes of those countries. This is either because they did not achieve justice and the fair distribution of resources (as is the case in most countries in the Arab world - the result of which has been many past and some ongoing revolutions to change this situation), or because they could not provide safety and security to the citizens, which is the case of the Palestinian Authority in specific.
In order to properly elucidate the formula of an authority, within the existence of exercising authority or sovereignty, we now move on to the definition of power or sovereignty. In principle, it is the ability of a particular person or organization to impose a set of behavioral patterns on a particular individual or people. The principle of authority is considered one of the cornerstones of human society, yet it is contradictory to the concept of cooperation. Adopting a set of work patterns based on an imposition by a higher authority is called obedience, and authority as a term includes most leadership cases. This definition highlights the clear contradiction between the terminology and the effective reality when it comes to occupation, exercising authority or sovereignty, and the establishment of a state and its personality by a third party other than occupation.
Liberation or freedom constitute a state of breaking free from chains that shackle the abilities of a person and their productivity, whether those shackles are financial or moral in nature. These chains include ridding a person from imposed pressures to perform certain duties, or of impositions and obligations. In other words, liberation is to do what is necessary to eliminate occupation and end its control of lands under its authority, while freedom is to remove this occupation and be able to rule and impose authority. Therefore, the presence of an Israeli occupation on Palestinian lands, as well as the presence of a Palestinian Authority at the same time, are contradictory and cannot be equivalent. It is impossible to exercise authority under an occupation, when its main goal is to control the abilities of the Palestinian people and prevent them from exercising any kind of sovereignty that might lead them out of their occupied lands or even restore these lands.
Thus, it is apparent that for things to line up the occupation must be confronted with a liberation movement, its goal being the removal of the material and moral pressure imposed by the occupation. This contradiction highlights the existence of two governments, the West Bank and Gaza. A government is a tool to exercise a non-existent sovereignty under occupation. Therefore, we must ask why there is such an obsession with declaring a state before going through the proper steps of liberation liability? It is nothing more than putting the cart before the horse, and disregarding the historic and logical necessary procedures for establishing a state, which means liberating it and seizing the power required to run its basic components. This would require the Palestinian case to go back to the way things were before the Oslo Accord when the main goal was liberating the land, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), along with other factions outside the PLO, were the key actors on the Palestinian scene, as well as the chief guide of the actual resistance on the ground. It was then that all political programs, despite their various directions and ideologies, revolved around a liberation that was aimed at establishing a Palestinian state, away from the domination of its colonizer, with complete sovereignty and control of its resources.
Declaring a Palestinian State
Before delving into the Palestinian state issue, I would like to allude to two benchmarks that Palestine has gone through. First is partition resolution 181[5] that the United States and Israel fought to get approved in order to create the separate states of Palestine and Israel, which is considered an admission and a confession from the United Nations that there should be an independent Palestinian state on what equals approximately 45% of historic Palestinian lands. Following this resolution, was the declaration of a Palestinian state from an all-Palestine government in 1948. If we were to accept the concept of establishing a Palestinian state on only a part of Palestinian lands, then we have forfeited the need to recognize the eligibility of Palestinians to declare their own state. Instead, all we must do is focus on starting the activation of the UN resolution by considering it one of the main cornerstones of this issue, especially since it would give us more area of land than we are currently asking for. The second benchmark I wanted to mention is the declaration of independence in 1988, which was acknowledged by 105 nations, with 70 of them hosting Palestinian embassies. Despite this declaration holding nothing more than moral value, it had sustained the momentum of the first Palestinian uprising (Intifada) until it was halted between 1991 and 1993 by the Madrid Peace Conference and the Oslo Accord respectively.
Yet again, the Palestinian political movement (in September 2011) revolved around declaring a Palestinian state and establishing it through international forums and the United Nations, while the Palestinian leadership worked hard at securing the largest number of supporters to this idea. To begin with, it is imperative to clarify that a "somewhat" acceptable Palestinian state must at least meet the clear and declared demands of the Palestinian people, including the establishment of a sovereign, independent, and viable Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. In order to make this happen, it is not enough to go to the United Nations and submit a request because getting this approved would not necessarily mean it would come to fruition, without a realistic implementation that would guarantee the establishment of the state on solid ground. Even if the 192 current members of the United Nations were to approve the bid, there would be no real effect without Israel and the United States accepting it as well, which is something that is highly unlikely without exerting pressure on them both.
Therefore, to realistically establish a Palestinian state based on political movements and international demands, one of two things must occur:
1. Israel must accept the Palestinian demands and retreat from the lands of '67, including Jerusalem, and waive complete sovereignty over the land to the Palestinians - something that borders the impossible according to the current effective perspective.
2. Obtain a resolution from the Security Council forcing Israel to implement previous resolutions from the Security Council, which define borders of a Palestinian state and secures the right of return for refugees, with the necessity of this decree being based on Chapter VII[6] of the United Nations Charter. This chapter entitles the United Nations the right to interfere militarily to guarantee the resolution implementation, as was the case in Iraq. Realistically speaking, this is also bordering the impossible, for Israel refuses to implement any of the Security Council's resolutions relating to the Palestinian cause, and there are dozens of them.
If we were to assume all members of the UN approved any new resolution, the United States - whose relationship with Israel shall not be discussed at this point - remains adamant at fighting this issue by all means possible. Other than that, even an international recognition or any UN decree would not be worth the ink that was used or the paper that it was written on for nothing would change. The best-case scenario would be that things remain as they were in 1988 and it would give moral support to the Palestinian people, but it would never become a concrete reality. The state that is envisioned and demanded is not one of institutions, roads, streets, and services, despite their importance; the state is sovereignty and control over destiny and resources, with a flag raised high, fearing no humiliation.
So why does the Palestinian Authority exhaust all of its energy and resources in trying to mobilize the largest number of countries that support a bid for a Palestinian state? What are the expected benefits? What are the negatives and the caveats that would result from this demand in case it were to be granted in its current distorted form, which is not in conformity with the major Palestinian demand? Most positives that are touted by the supporters of this initiative in the Palestinian Authority revolve around achieving an international consensus, and a redefinition of the concept of the Israeli occupation of Palestine from one of people under occupation to a Palestinian state under occupation. This is done in the hopes that this consensus would embarrass Israel and pressure it to go back to the negotiation process with additional support and better conditions for Palestinians in that process, in addition to preventing Israel from executing its threats to officially annex its settlements within Jerusalem and the West Bank, as they are part of the Palestinian state to be recognized by the UN. Despite knowing full well the legal and international significance of this point, it disregards a number of issues, namely the aspect of struggle. It focuses on the international aspect of solving the Palestinian issue while neglecting the objective/subjective aspect of the role of the Palestinian people and the forces allied with it in contributing to the liberation operation in an effective manner.
Still, from a political and legal point of view, if this direction were to succeed in any case, its outcome would be much less than the Palestinian demands. If the case were that it failed to provide the necessary conditions related to sovereignty, borders, and Jerusalem, then this would lead to a distorted state, and would have many negative implications, some of which can be summed up thusly:
- Only on 22% of Palestine's lands, which relinquishes their rights to demand or fight to liberate what remains from historic Palestine, or what has been called the lands of '48, and would effectively wipe historic Palestine from the map.
- It would secure Israel's existence on 78% of Palestine's lands, granting it legitimacy and the opportune moment to declare itself a Jewish state, which negatively affects the approximately 1.5 million Palestinian people living within the borders of the lands of '48.
- It grants Israel and the international community the opportunity to rid themselves of the Palestinian refugee issues at the expense of the nascent state, and revokes the right of return of the refugees to their stolen lands and villages.
- It nulls all previous international resolutions specific to the Palestinian issue, and gives the Security Council, which is controlled by the United States, the ability to tailor the borders of the Palestinian state according to the desires of Israel, forcing the Palestinians to accept this solution, or at least using it as a key reference in all future negotiations.
- Depending on the nature and direction of the Israeli and American diplomatic movements, which are opposed to the Palestinian bid, it would give Israelis a golden opportunity to consider what has been given to the Palestinians as Israeli generosity, and regard the recognition of the Palestinian state, regardless of its form, as the complete end to the Arab-Israeli conflict. On the other hand, it would give the Palestinian Authority the opportunity to escape the complete and utter failure that Oslo and the final negotiations had reached, and consider it the ultimate end to the Palestinian struggle and see it as a national liberatory accomplishment. In this there is a clear bias to the national compass, veering away from its supposed and needed obligations.
- It would pave the way for Israelis to make a diplomatic move on all fronts, requesting normalization and peace with all Arab nations, ending its embarrassment in the international community resulting from its intransigence towards granting the Palestinian people's legitimate demands.
Based on what has been discussed thus far, I urge that it not be misunderstood as an opposition to the declaration of a Palestinian state, for it is the dream and desire of every Palestinian. However, what is needed is a state that meets the hopes and aspirations of the Palestinian people, which would only result from the maturing of all subjective and objective conditions required to wrench this nation from Israeli occupation and establish it properly. These conditions are currently unavailable, and drifting along with this bid as it is presently would only result in an incomplete sovereignty, with fragmented borders and that would, in reality, remain under Israeli military and economic control. It is also important that a bid for statehood not be the only way to fight the Israeli occupation, or be considered a means to go back to pointless negotiations once again, as some Palestinian officials have stated. It should be only one of the means of struggle against the occupation that cumulatively contributes in setting the liberation wheels in motion, and producing elements of effective pressure on Israel and the United States administration.
-----------------------------------
- [1] Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907, http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/195.
- [2] Ibid. Section III, Military Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State, Article 42.
- [3] http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-40.html
- [4] Ibid. Article 1
- [5] The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm.
- [6] http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml.
