- MENU
- HOME
- SEARCH
- WORLD
- MAIN
- AFRICA
- ASIA
- BALKANS
- EUROPE
- LATIN AMERICA
- MIDDLE EAST
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Argentina
- Australia
- Austria
- Benelux
- Brazil
- Canada
- China
- France
- Germany
- Greece
- Hungary
- India
- Indonesia
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Japan
- Korea
- Mexico
- New Zealand
- Pakistan
- Philippines
- Poland
- Russia
- South Africa
- Spain
- Taiwan
- Turkey
- USA
- BUSINESS
- WEALTH
- STOCKS
- TECH
- HEALTH
- LIFESTYLE
- ENTERTAINMENT
- SPORTS
- RSS
- iHaveNet.com
By Helen Twist
On June 26, 2011, against a shifting regional landscape, the
Recent shifts in Palestinian strategy reflect a response to the changing regional dynamic and the decision to go to
Some suggest that the Arab world has looked to the Palestinian struggle for inspiration for the revolutionary change sweeping the region. However, this is not the case. In reality the Palestinian leadership is dogged by a disempowered internal and external constituency, isolated from the political process. The focus of the majority of protests has been towards national unity rather than Israel, and the recent rapprochement between
Concerns about the implications of the outcome are centred around how the declaration of a state will be reflected on ground. It is not clear what steps the Palestinian leadership intends to take come September, and there is a strong possibility of violence breaking out as a result of frustration and unmanaged expectations.
Until now Palestinian strategy with regards to negotiations and the peace process has been reactive rather than proactive. Negotiations have come to be viewed as a pretext for continuing expansion of settlements and occupation; a sentiment that increased following the revelations of the Palestine Papers, which highlighted the Israeli refusal to compromise, despite the numerous and politically damaging concessions offered by the Palestinian negotiators. Furthermore, the process of state development under occupation can itself be seen to be complicit in perpetuating the status quo. However, based on conversations in a recent visit to Jerusalem, the bid for recognition was framed by the Palestinian leadership as symbolic of a new voice, in which plurality and inclusion is celebrated. Recent shifts are again reactive to wider regional events; this move, if handled correctly, could open the door for a new phase of decisive and strategic leadership - a necessity if the murmurs of revolt are to be contained. What remains to be seen is what comes of this opportunity.
The establishment of an independent sovereign Palestinian state by 2011 forms a key element of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's 2009 timetable, detailing the reinforcement of the institutions of the future state over a two year period, in accordance with the timetable set out by the Middle East Quartet, and supported by various initiatives within the
Palestine currently has 'other entity' permanent observer status at the UN, effectively acting as a non-voting member of the
The full membership option looks unlikely, given the resistance of the United States to the declaration. However, it is possible that the recognition option will go through. Recognition, whilst of political rather than legal significance, would give momentum for recourse to international legal mechanisms for dispute resolution, including the
The Palestinian leadership has spoken of drawing on other models of 'international struggle' such as the experience of South Africa and India as examples of how to use international law as a means to increase international support. This is what the campaign in September is about. Although there may not be a change in the legal position, recognition would shift the language used, changing the emphasis from 'disputed territories' to occupied land in a sovereign state and hardening the international perspective of Israeli occupation. It is hoped that recognition could also necessitate withdrawal from a sovereign Palestinian territory. However, there has been some scepticism expressed about the possibility of the international mechanisms being able to compel Israel to abide by its international obligations, even within a legal framework.
If the resolution is to have legitimacy and political weight, EU support is essential to counter balance American opposition - the position adopted by France, Germany and the United Kingdom will be particularly critical in the credibility of the outcome. It has been suggested that the need for EU support may temper more controversial aspects of a possible resolution, in order to make it appealing to potential EU supporters. The EU response can be divided into four distinct groups: the active, passive and possible 'yes' countries; the passive countries who will abstain or oppose the process due to a possible compromise to their own interests; those seeking a common European approach to recognition; and those who are actively opposed to recognition (Germany has crucially taken this stance).
There are very clear concerns from Israel, echoed by the United States, with regard to the implication of recognition on the Oslo Accord and for Israel politically - on the international stage and domestically. The perceived shift away from negotiations has been of major concern to the US and Israel, a position informed by the belief that unilateral Palestinian steps will endanger the negotiations - making the task of preserving framework for negotiations in the future much harder - undermine the two state model and isolate the US from the peace process. The 'unilateral' Palestinian action has been met with a diplomatic rebuttal from Israel, giving an indication of just how serious a challenge this declaration is seen to pose.
It has been emphasised by the Palestinian leadership that the bid for recognition seeks to support and strengthen the Palestinian negotiating position rather than undermine the security of Israel, as a supplement to, rather than a substitute, for negotiations. Israel fears that on the battlefield of
It would seem that America and Israel are committed only to democracy and self determination on their own terms - adopting the position that this unilateral action threatens the establishment of a viable two-state solution and refusing to engage with a unified Palestinian leadership which includes a democratically elected
The implications of this decision are myriad; however, it is indicative of a clear shift away from American influence in the negotiations and marks the potential beginning of a more nuanced, European brokerage of the peace process. Continued American support for Israel risks placing America against popular aspirations elsewhere in region, challenging its influence in Palestinian-Israeli affairs and regionally. Israel has been notable in its lack of engagement in a time of flux and transition, and it would seem that if it is not going to be left behind, it needs to take the initiative and start to actively engage with the peace process agenda, bringing tangible, constructive change to the table. The international response to the Arab Spring has been deeply incoherent and inconsistent. It is these inconstancies between cases, based on short term interests, which stand in the way of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state, and in the way of a lasting and constructive engagement between the international community and a newly emergent Middle East.
(Helen Twist is the Programme Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham House.)
Available at Amazon.com:
Aftermath: Following the Bloodshed of America's Wars in the Muslim World
Displacement and Dispossession in the Modern Middle East (The Contemporary Middle East)
The End of History and the Last Man
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
The Tragedy of Great Power Politics
Copyright ©, Chatham House; Distributed by TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
WORLD | AFRICA | ASIA | EUROPE | LATIN AMERICA | MIDDLE EAST | UNITED STATES | ECONOMICS | EDUCATION | ENVIRONMENT | FOREIGN POLICY | POLITICS
World - Middle East: Palestine Towards Statehood | Global Viewpoint