On Monday the United Kingdom will vote on recognizing the state of Palestine. The House of Commons’ symbolic motion is poised to pass the Parliament despite Britain’s history of refusing to approve previous and similar bids. When the UK government was faced with Palestine’s own plans to seek recognition from the United Nations in 2012, Britain abstained.
The bill’s backers from the Labour party have shored up votes from Liberal Democrats and Conservatives alike, making Monday a likely Palestinian victory. But the vote is coming at a cost. The Independent is reporting inside of Britian’s Labour party, pro-Israel members of Parliament are “furious.” Still the measure more or less models what former Prime Minister Tony Blair has proposed through the Quartet. And the House of Commons bill is also being pushed by heavyweights from within the government.
The UK’s former consul-general to Jerusalem Vincent Fean has advocated that the UK should advance a two-state plan modeled after the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002—which called for a Palestinian state alongside an Israeli state on the June 1967 lines, and the division of Jerusalem in exchange for normalization of relations between the Arab World and Israel–by voting for statehood in the Parliament. Coincidentally in the West Bank, Fean is most known for causing uproar at Bir Zeit University outside of Ramallah. Two years ago the diplomat was scheduled to speak on campus when scores of students flooded the parking lot, pelting his car with stones. Nineteen school-goers were arrested. The clash was emblematic of the fact that sentiments of Palestinians towards their former colonial rulers are still tense–and no one from the British government has been invited to the university since.
But that background is exactly why Fean believes the UK should take a step on speeding up a Palestinian state.
“We are party to the history of this conflict – originators of the Balfour Declaration and holders of the Mandate for Palestine between 1920 and 1948,” wrote Fean in September when he staged the proposal in the British daily The Telegraph. “Under the Mandate, we took on a ‘sacred trust of civilisation’ to advance the welfare of the Palestinian people and guide them to independence,” he continued.
The UK broached the idea of acknowledging a Palestinian state by vote after Israel declared its largest settlement expansion yet at the close of summer. Just as the war between Israel and Gaza was cooling, Israeli officials announced tenders for settlement growth near Bethlehem. “Where we lead, Europe will follow – and there is urgency,” Fean wrote in his op-ed of the 1,000 acres of land Israel plans to build on nestled between the West Bank and Jerusalem. Israeli construction there compromises not only territorial continuity for a future Palestinian state, but access to Jerusalem in general.
“The combination of illegal Israeli settlements in occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank and the closure of Gaza means that time is not on our side if the two neighbourly states we seek are to be realized,” wrote Fean.
The move also sidelines Israel’s demand that any agreement can only be reached through negotiations and not by unilateral declarations of statehood, or the international communities’. The United States has consistently echoed that approach since the Palestinian Authority went to the United Nations in 2012 and upgraded its status to non-member observer.
The U.S. is cool on these initiatives. “We certainly support Palestinian statehood, but it can only come through a negotiated outcome, a resolution of final status issues and mutual recognitions by both parties,” said State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki last week when Sweden made headlines by stating that it intended to be the first European Union country to recognize the state of Palestine. The UK’s Prime Minister supports the U.S. stance. Indeed there is considerable daylight between David Cameron’s Conservative party and Labour, which is pushing the Palestinian state inside of the Parliament.
Cameron has asserted himself as a staunch, no-holds-barred Israel-backer. He’s kept quiet on the statehood debate in his home country thus far, but earlier this year in his first visit to Jerusalem as head of state he made clear his policy was lockstep with Israel. “Let me say to you very clearly,” he said to Knesset last March, “with me, you have a British Prime Minister whose belief in Israel is unbreakable.” Then, Cameron announced he made special arrangements for Israeli officials such as Tzipi Livni who were unable to travel to the UK out of fear of prosecution for crimes committed against Palestinians under Britain’s international jurisdiction laws. “When I became Prime Minister I legislated to change it. My country is open to you. And you are welcome to visit anytime,” he continued.
Conservative Friends of Israel, Western Europe’s AIPAC is organizing against the vote, and their ties to the current UK government run deep. The head of the Conservative party attended their conference last week and at the end of the year David Cameron will keynote one of their events.
In my opinion and quite extraordinarily George Galloway intends to abstain in Monday’s vote on recognizing Palestinian statehood. “I continue to support the only realistic solution, one democratic and secular state, called Israel-Palestine or Palestine-Israel.”
“The proposed two-state solution is to all intents and purposes dead and is only used in order to provide Israel further breathing space to consolidate the illegal settlements and expand its land grab further.”
“For these reasons, I am afraid I cannot support this motion and will abstain on Monday.”
George Galloway, MP for Bradford West,
I think George Galloway is wrong here, can he name one state or other institution at the UN who supports “a one state solution?” Can he name one political party in the world including in Palestine which supports a one state solution? I certainly cannot. As an idealistic solution it is attractive, but as a practical and legal first step it is very problematical. All those resolutions at the UN called for self determination of the Palestinian people or for Israel to end the occupation of Palestinian land, they did not call for a one state solution, far from it, they envisage two states living side by side, Israel and Palestine, with equal rights for minorities in both states. This outcome [far off as it seems to be] is the preferred choice of the majority in the world including the Palestinians. I think George Galloway’s abstention is completely wrong and self indulgent. He must remember he was never a revolutionary and I think quite rightly believes in reform or one step at a time. In other words the Palestinians need statehood first, then they can approach the ICC and ICJ and apply to join all the other 60 odd? UN Agencies, their membership of UNESCO and other recent agencies and conventions point the way forward, the recognition of that fact is what prompted the Swedish government to recognize the state of Palestine, just as I hope the UK parliament does on Monday. All this is not to say a one state solution is out of the question, only that the Israelis fear a one state scenario more than a two state one and it is because of that possibility, expulsion would top of Israels future agenda. In my opinion if the Palestinians could get a result at the ICC, [on population transfers] forcing the Israelis to stop settlement activity. Then without expansion the settlement would die a natural death. Galloway should think again, it may be a long time before the Palestinians achieve a victory on this scale.
In my opinion and quite extraordinarily George Galloway intends to abstain in Monday’s vote on recognizing Palestinian statehood. “I continue to support the only realistic solution, one democratic and secular state, called Israel-Palestine or Palestine-Israel.”
“The proposed two-state solution is to all intents and purposes dead and is only used in order to provide Israel further breathing space to consolidate the illegal settlements and expand its land grab further.”
“For these reasons, I am afraid I cannot support this motion and will abstain on Monday.”
George Galloway, MP for Bradford West,
I think George Galloway is wrong here, can he name one state or other institution at the UN who supports “a one state solution?” Can he name one political party in the world including in Palestine which supports a one state solution? I certainly cannot. As an idealistic solution it is attractive, but as a practical and legal first step it is very problematical. All those resolutions at the UN called for self determination of the Palestinian people or for Israel to end the occupation of Palestinian land, they did not call for a one state solution, far from it, they envisage two states living side by side, Israel and Palestine, with equal rights for minorities in both states. This outcome [far off as it seems to be] is the preferred choice of the majority in the world including the Palestinians. I think George Galloway’s abstention is completely wrong and self indulgent. He must remember he was never a revolutionary and I think quite rightly believes in reform or one step at a time. In other words the Palestinians need statehood first, then they can approach the ICC and ICJ and apply to join all the other 60 odd? UN Agencies, their membership of UNESCO and other recent agencies and conventions point the way forward, the recognition of that fact is what prompted the Swedish government to recognize the state of Palestine, just as I hope the UK parliament does on Monday. All this is not to say a one state solution is out of the question, only that the Israelis fear a one state scenario more than a two state one and it is because of that possibility, expulsion would top Israels future agenda. In my opinion if the Palestinians could get a result at the ICC, [on population transfers] forcing the Israelis to stop settlement activity. Then without expansion the settlement would die a natural death. Galloway should think again, it may be a long time before the Palestinians achieve a victory on this scale.
17 reasons why Britain should recognise Palestine:
http://www.leftfutures.org/2014/10/is-your-mp-voting-to-recognise-palestine-here-are-17-reasons-why-they-should/
And tho I can’t do a link from it, there are two pieces on Sayeeda Warsi in today’s Observer, one of which deals with tomorrows debate – in which she claims the foreign office personnel are all for recognition!
As HarryLaw posted above, there are those who look upon endorsing a two state solution as working against Palestinian best interests. I began to feel that way myself the more I thought about Britain’s upcoming vote, but after considering how far we want to be compared to where we are now, a loud and very public vote for Palestinian Statehood makes sense for many reasons (getting AIPAC’s knickers in a twist being only one of them).
We’re talking about moving a moral compass here, and those opposing this measure are on the wrong side of history. Any action that highlights this shortcoming is to the good, in my opinion, as well as anything which shakes up this wretched status quo that only works to the benefit of the occupier.
Leaders like Cameron and Obama are wrong on this issue; it’s about time they feel a bit of heat because of it.
The repercussions of a positive vote has potential to be very damaging to Israel. It can set the ball rolling for other Euro states to do the same (Sweden did so last week). Israels greatest fear imo is that more Americans may begin to question their countries position re Israel and other aspects of the conflict, ie, settlements, intl law and wonder why the hell their country continues to back what is essentially a rogue state while the rest of the world do not. If vote is in favor, Israels friends in msm will ensure this story is ignored or relegated to the back pages.