On the 65th
anniversary of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, in a 138-9 vote
in the General Assembly, the United Nations approved the Palestinian
Authority’s request for an upgrade from “non-member observer entity” to
“non-member observer state” (Ziabari). Although Palestine failed to achieve the
UN’s coveted “independent state” status, the upgrade marks a significant milestone
in Palestine’s progression towards statehood. Straddled with the “non-member
observer entity status” since 1974, Palestine has repeatedly sought recognition
in the United Nations and international community as an independent and functional
state (a burdensome, yet critical, task, given that recognition in the
international community is a key criterion in the definition of a state) (Hume
and Fantz). Although Palestine lacks voting status in the United Nations
General Assembly, the alteration of Palestine’s definition from “entity” to
“state” signifies a growing international trend towards identifying Palestine
as a state separate from Israel, known colloquially as the “two-state solution”
(Hume and Fantz). While the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO),
Mahmoud Abbas, is still pushing the application for Palestine to receive
independent state status in the UN, it is important to understand the context
for Thursday’s historical decision.
At the end
of World War II, as a condition of peace, Britain relinquished its claim to
Palestine and left the final decision of Palestine’s territorial status to the
United Nations. Given Palestine’s large, and recently contentious, Arab and
Jewish populations (1,269,000 and 608,000 citizens respectively), the United
Nations was forced to segregate both populations into respective states to
reduce hostilities (MERIP). However, given the lack of defined historical or
ethnic borders, the United Nations faced difficulty finding a definitive border
by which to split the Palestinian Mandate. After bitter negotiations in the
General Assembly, on November 29th, 1947, the United Nations passed
the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which divided Palestine into
two states: one state with a Jewish majority (recognized later as Israel) and
one state with an Arab majority (recognized later as Palestine) (Ibid).
The 1947 Partition Plan faced three
major setbacks. First, while the partition ensured both states had their
respective ethnic majorities, the partition still left major Jewish settlements
in the proposed Arab territory and major Arab settlements in the proposed
Jewish territory (MERIP). Second, the Israeli state was created slightly larger
than the Palestinian state (53% left to Israel, 47% left to Palestine) in
anticipation of sizable Jewish immigration into Israel, irritating Palestinians
who demanded equal, if not more, land to compensate for their advantage in
population (Ibid). This inequality led Palestinians to protest that Britain
unfairly allowed the expansion of the Jewish state at the expense of UN
settlement of the borders. Finally, the UN partition designated Bethlehem and
Jerusalem as corpus separatum independent
of the jurisdiction of both Israel and Palestine, fostering conflict between
the rightful owners of both districts (Ibid).
In the days following the UN Partition
Plan, violent disputes erupted between Israelis and Palestinians regarding the
bounds of their respective settlements. Armed against a smaller, but highly
organized and internationally supported Israeli army, the Palestinians faced an
uphill battle to defend their homeland against Jewish expansion (MERIP).
Recognizing their national and religious interests were at stake, neighboring
Arab states, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq, invaded Israeli on the side of the
Palestinians (Ibid). However, the Arab neighbors only intervened so that should
Palestine lose the war, they could divide the defeated Palestinian state
amongst themselves. Surrounded by overwhelmingly powerful rival states
threatening their sovereignty, Palestine lost the war and in the armistice
agreements of 1949, the Palestinian state ceased to exist (Ibid).
Engaged in sporadic conflict for the
last 65 years to reclaim their sovereignty, an independent Palestine could
substantially benefit the international community. In a recent statement, Abbas
claimed that recognition of an independent Palestinian state could catalyze
peace talks with Israel (Charbonneau). Over the last few years, there have been
two primary obstacles to a successful peace settlement between Israel and
Palestine: new Israeli settlements in the West Bank and recognition of the
Palestine as an independent state. Abbas has made indications that he would be
willing to forgive the precondition regarding Israeli settlements to resume
peace talks if Palestine grew its status in the United Nations (Charbonneau).
By implicitly recognizing the status of Palestine as a state, even without
granting Palestine the rights and privileges of full-UN membership, the United
Nations has taken a momentous step in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict.
However, roadblocks still lie in the
path of independent Palestinian statehood and a successful, conclusive peace
treaty between Israel and Palestine. Firstly, the United States and the UN
Security Council provide ample resistance to an independent Palestine. While
Palestine passed the hurdle of a simple majority in the UN General Assembly, in
order to become a full-fledged voting state in the United Nations, 9 of the 15
UN Security Council members must agree to Palestine’s assentation to statehood,
including all five permanent members. Given their historical relations to
Israel, the United States has threatened to veto Palestinian attempts at
statehood should the issue come to a vote, including already voting against the
Palestinian status of “non-member observer state” on Thursday (Mathes).
Secondly, the United States has
threatened to cut aid to Palestine should it receive recognition as an
independent state. Senators Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Chuck Shumer (D-NY) have
threatened over $900 million dollars in funding cuts if Palestine seeks to sue
Israel in the International Criminal Court for reparations (Mathes). With US
opposition to statehood, Palestine will need to make severe concessions to the
United States and Israel if it seeks to attain member status at the United
Nations.
Finally, Israel has threatened severe
backlash should Palestine continue its path towards UN recognition. Senior
Israeli officials have threatened to approve 3,000 new homes in
Israeli-occupied territory since Thursday’s decision, reinforcing Israel’s
decided opposition to Palestinian statehood (Associated Press). Escalated
Israeli construction only seeks to antagonize the Palestinians and has
previously shown able to derail peace talks between the two entities,
demonstrated in the failed 2008 and 2010 peace summits (Associated Press).
Unless Israel and Palestine can make severe concessions to each other, any hope
for an independent Palestine or reduction in conflict on the Gaza Strip is
doomed to failure.
I believe the only solution to
resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in light of Palestine’s recent achievements
is a series of reciprocal concessions and conditions that result in a decisive
border between the two states and a full withdrawal of military forces from
Israel and Palestine. For Israel, the concessions should be both military and
economic. As a precondition to peace
negotiations, Israel should back down from threats regarding constructed
settlements in the Middle East, which clearly threatens historically
Palestinian territory. On the other side, the leaders of the Palestinian
Liberation Organization should agree not press charges against Israel for war
crimes before the International Criminal Court. By absolving Israel of the
legal battle over war crimes, Palestine can appease the United States and earn
both their vote on the UN Security Council and aid for state construction.
Independent of the decisions of both
states, the United Nations has two tasks to guide the Israeli-Palestinian peace
and Palestinian statehood processes. Firstly, the United Nations should support
that the disputed territory of Jerusalem and Bethlehem should retain its 1947
status of “corpus separatum” and become and international zone governed by the
United Nations. The independence of Bethlehem and Jerusalem should be stripped
of explicit religious jurisdiction in its recognition as an international
territory. Secondly, the United Nations should recommend that Israel’s borders
extend only to its pre-1967 boundaries and designate all former Palestinian
territory outside of that border as under Palestinian sovereignty. With the
resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a precondition, the United
States would approve Palestinian status as a member state in the United Nations
Security Council. Through multiple reciprocal concessions, the states of Israel
and Palestine can coexist peacefully in the international system.
Works Cited:
Associated Press. “US Seeks Way Forward for Middle East
Peace Talks, at a Time Few
are Listening to Washington.” The Washington Post. 30 November 2012.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-scrambles-to-salvage-hopes-for-mideast-peace-talks-resumption-after-palestinian-win-at-un/2012/11/30/b59335fe-3b27-11e2-9258-ac7c78d5c680_story.html>
Charbonneau, Louis. “What’s All the Fuss About a Palestinian
UN Upgrade?” Reuters.
29 November 2012. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/29/us-palestinians-statehood-qa-idUSBRE8AS1HB20121129>
Hume, Tim and Ashley Fantz.
“Palestinian United Nations Bid Explained”
CNN. 30
November 2012. < http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/28/world/meast/un-palestinian-bid/index.html>
Mathes, Matthew. “US Laws Could Gut-Punch Palestinians on UN
Recognition.” The
Daily
Star. 1 December 2012. < http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-
East/2012/Dec-01/196816-us-laws-could-gut-punch-palestinians-on-un-recognition.ashx#axzz2DpMarJytl>
Middle East Research and Information Project. “The United
Nations Partition Plan.” No
date. <http://www.merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/un-partition-plan-pal-isr.html>
Ziabari,
Kourosh. “Palestine’s UN Membership: the Beginning of a Long Way.” Al Arabiya News. 30 November 2012. <http://english.alarabiya.net/views/2012/11/30/252677.html>
Do you believe that this is a good enough compromise for both sides? Both of these factions believe that the religious ground is theirs. Will they be offended if it is seen as no ones? Also, Israel will be losing some of its territory. How can you see these dynamics playing out in the future if they gain statehood?
ReplyDeleteI believe it's a good enough compromise for both sides. A few different international relations perspectives lend suport for the solution. From a realist perspective, the independence of Jerusalem and Bethlehem ensures a balance of power between both Israel and Palestine whereby neither would access the soft power and strategic geopolitical position both cities afford. From a liberal standpoint, trust in international institution like the United Nations affords the region a degree of security that is unavailable if both cities went towards one state or the other. Even if it the settlement offends both states, neither would challenge the authority of the United Nations and the result would be less violent than a protracted dispute between the two states over jurisdiction. Although Israel would lose its modern borders, settlement back to the 1967 borders adjusts for territory claimed by Israel through wars with modern day Palestine. These dynamics will likely lead to uneasiness and perhaps diplomatic hostility, but in the long run, the solution will allow for a fragile (and eventually, comfortable) peace in the region.
ReplyDelete