Ref: AD-2836
Summary: several G7 nations and others in the Global North are expressing willingness to recognise a Palestinian state, with a recent UN conference in New York further supporting a two-state solution. However the “New York Declaration” and similar statements are biased, blaming “all parties” for the conflict while specifically demanding Hamas’s disarmament and promoting a Palestinian Authority as a puppet government, ultimately serving Israel’s war goals under the guise of diplomacy.
This content is locked
Login or Register To Unlock The Content!
Good that Arab Digest is addressing this tortuous issue. I have read the comments so far with much interest.
The pessimism over the prospects for a two-state solution is fully justified. But the wider debate has been useful in bringing out a factor that the media have too often glossed over: that the only realistic alternative to a TSS is not a one-state solution, which the Israelis will reject even more firmly than a TSS, but the annexation of the whole Occupied Territories and the expulsion of most Palestinians. The crucial message of recognition is that this is a totally unacceptable ambition, which recognising states will always oppose.
This is the increasingly stark choice being presented to the Israeli electorate. Support annexation, and your country will be opposed by a wide proportion of world opinion and trading partners for the indefinite future; or accept that a TSS is Israel’s best long-term hope of peace and security, however distasteful that appears at present. That is what Netanyahu’s polarising strategy has delivered at this point.
Like you and so many of your readers, I have spent some of my free time trying to persuade our Government to act to advance equal rights to Palestinians and Israelis.
UK recognition of the state of Palestine alongside Israel opens a door. It is a beginning, not the end. The next step is for us – British civil society – to determine, and to press our Parliament and Government to help make happen. The war crimes which Israel is committing merit UK sanctions.
I am 72 years old. I wish to see equal rights for Palestinians and Israelis in my lifetime.
There is a way – but it is not, in my opinion, by seeking to obliterate the state of Israel.
I am considerably older than Vincent Fean. Unlike him, I have lost any reasonable expectation that I will live to see a peaceful settlement of the Palestine disaster.
I am no longer fully informed of daily developments. My despair springs from the fact that I have never believed Netanyahu and his Israeli supporters are prepared to accept a Two State solution, and it seems clear that opinion in Israel has hardened in his support in that respect since 7/10. This is hardly surprising given the way the Gaza operation has been presented to the Israeli people. How the duty of enforcing the operation has brutalised rank and file IDF personnel, I cannot imagine. But it is also because, though I stand to be corrected, there is no sign in Washington of any substantial weakening of overwhelming and unconditional support for Israel, or any disposition on the part of Trump to employ with Netanyahu the transactional bargaining tactics to which all other US partners are subject. As in Europe, there may be substantial popular dissent and horror, but the narrative of an existentialist threat from Iran and its terrorist proxies prevails where decisions are made. That is how US Democracy works. When a President (Obama for example) tried briefly to press Netanyahu to address a political solution, he was briskly deflected to the Iranian nuclear threat that must be settled first. For decades the Two State Solution has been a shibboleth for the US, not a policy, and Israel and Israeli settlers have proceeded at varying speed to create facts on the ground, and to assist the downfall of any regional players not willing to fall in with this process. No Arab army will fight for Palestine and there are few signs that Western aligned regimes are threatened by popular support for the cause.
What effect the suffering of Gazans and, indeed, the humiliation and oppression of Palestinians in the West Bank, will have in the future, wherever they and their descendants may be suffered to live, I cannot imagine. Europe is powerless so long as the US gives unconditional support. Any Western claim to be committed to a rules based International order will be in tatters. The choice made by Israel’s leaders to identify opposition to their policies with antisemitism will risk turning a Western Christian disease into a world wide phenomenon. It is all awful and no British political party dare address the issue, not solely because of the fear of angering Trump.
I deeply hope that I am proved wrong, that US and Israeli policies are transformed and that Israelis and Palestinians prove capable of living together side by side. But I see no sign of it.
The demographics are interesting – over 65s of both parties tend to be more pro-Israel, and under 35s of both parties tend to be more pro-Palestinian. Mamdani, the NYC mayoral candidate, has also captured many Jewish voters, despite being Muslim (albeit Ugandan Indian) and not overtly pro-Israel.
Perhaps more significant – since it is Trump’s core constituency – is the America First movement, who object to US support for Israel on the basis that it is not America First (rather than being pro-Palestine.) This may interest: “32% in U.S. Back Israel’s Military Action in Gaza, a New Low”
This may be a going bankrupt “slowly then quickly” instance.
Like Labour’s loveless landslide, HAMAS’s victory over FATAH was in great part due to FATAH corruption, as well as FATAH members running as “independent candidates” in many seats, thus splitting the FATAH vote. Despite our experience in Afghanistan and Iraq – or possibly vice versa – we do not seem to have learnt the lesson that backing a corrupt clique merely because they agree with the West’s unrealistic desired end state does not legitimise them; indeed, to the contrary.
‘The Declaration “condemns all attacks by any party against civilians, including all acts of terrorism.” This is a cynical tactic, drawing a false equivalence between the actions of one of the world’s most advanced state military forces and those of a resistance movement fighting against an illegal occupation.’ Possibly. This may just be a veiled reference to the Settlers. Although various states have sanctioned “violent extremist settlers”, they have not proscribed them – yet. However, a couple of British politicians have used the “T word” to describe the actions of Israeli settlers; should more follow, it is possible that “violent extremist settlers” – who meet the definition of terrorism – will also be proscribed.
The double standards Western politicians have shown towards the Holy Land is bizarre, given our successful practices elsewhere, particularly in Ireland. ‘[W]hile repeatedly calling for the “exclusion” and “disarmament of Hamas”‘ – we did not demand that Sinn Fein be excluded (indeed, the current First Minister of Northern Ireland is from Sinn Fein.) Nor did we demand that PIRA surrender their weapons – instead we allowed them to “decommission” their weapons. Similarly, Gerry Adams was President of Sinn Fein and reputedly Chief of Staff of PIRA’s Army Council, yet we allowed Sinn Fein to continue as PIRA’s political wing – even voting them a variation of Short Money – without proscribing the Irish Republican movement in its totality. HAMAS’s electoral base will shrink when there is a credible alternative (although that is not likely to be pro-West.)
“Israel’s ongoing expansion of settlements, which systematically undermines any viable Palestinian state.” This statement – like so many others on the Holy Land – has come to be Received Wisdom, yet is not borne out by experience. The Israelis have evacuated Settlements from Sinai, Gaza, the northern West Bank: it can be done again. More widely, Nagorno-Karabakh depopulated almost overnight after the Azerbaijanis seized it. Then there’s Algeria …
‘Without concrete actions to end the occupation and ensure full Palestinian sovereignty, the willingness to recognise the State of Palestine is symbolic.’ I disagree. France and the UK have sizeable Jewish populations, many of whom are supportive of the Occupation. Once France and UK (if Starmer keeps taking his brave pills) recognise Palestine, the exploitation of the OPTs – including East Jerusalem – will be unlawful, meaning that such support will have to stop. The Government of Palestine will be able to take legal action in French or British courts against individuals, “charities”, and companies who profit from supporting the Occupation. If further states in the EU – Israel’s largest trading partner – follow France’s example of recognising Palestine, and enforce sanctions on e.g. Settlements, the Invisible Hand of the Market is likely to grip the Occupation by the short and curlies.
James Spencer makes a very valid observation about support among US voters’ (lukewarm) support for US backing for Israel over Gaza. However, for at least two reasons this is very unlikely to move Donald Trump.
First, the MAGA faithful includes a large number of white evangelicals who are fervently Zionist based on their interpretation of the Bible and the ‘end of time’. Estimates of the size of this constituency vary; but it is almost certainly a double-digit percentage of the US population and predominantly Republican if not actually MAGA. It is also the case that their leaders are disproportionately influential within the GOP.
Second, when push comes to shove most Americans (in common with other electorates worldwide) simply do not decide how to vote over foreign policy (acknowledging that Joe Biden’s stance on Israel certainly cost Kamala Harris votes among American Muslims). Ultimately, James Carville’s famous quip from the 1992 election is almost invariably shown to be correct, i.e. it is “the economy, stupid”. Even though it is my job to make political forecasts I hesitate to say categorically that economic concerns will weigh most heavily on the midterms and/or the 2028 elections; but the way things look right now it would be surprising if these were not at the top of the MAGA faithful’s agenda as Mr Trump implements policy after policy which are likely to ill-serve less well-to-do Americans and small businesses.
In short, if US policy on Israel/Gaza is to change I doubt that public opinion will be the key determinant.