In an odd, though not unexpected, turn of events in Israel, the Knesset voted on Wednesday to reject “unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state.” The declaration was made in response to rumors that the United States was considering recognizing the state of Palestine.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with his typical demagogic flourish, characterized the rumors as an existential threat, saying, “The Knesset came together in an overwhelming majority against the attempt to impose on us the establishment of a Palestinian state, which would not only fail to bring peace but would endanger the State of Israel.”
The Knesset vote was overwhelming, but it was a vote about a fantasy. While the rumors about U.S. recognition of a Palestinian state were real, there was very little behind them. Their most likely source was an intentional leak by the U.S. State Department intended not as a signal of real intent but as a warning to Netanyahu to stop embarrassing Washington.
Israel stated that its policy, according to reports, holds that “any permanent accord with the Palestinians must be reached through direct negotiations between the sides and not by international dictates.” That’s consistent with long-standing American policy, and that is why that framing was used, as a reminder to Washington of its own long-held position. But this language of “international dictates” and “imposing” things on Israel is a real stretch, even if the United States were seriously considering recognizing Palestine.
Even the term “unilateral recognition” is an absurdity. It elides the fact that the vast majority of United Nations member states — 139 out of the 193 members — have already recognized Palestine, which holds observer state status at the U.N.
That recognition came years ago, and it made no difference to Israel. The war crimes, the occupation, the human rights violations, the dispossession, and the violation of Palestinians’ basic rights all continued apace. Of course, American recognition would have a greater impact. But it would still be only symbolic and a warning unless the United States decided to press Israel to accept that Palestinian state in other ways. If it did that, of course, there would be no need to recognize Palestine before the state was physically established anyway; the point is to pressure Israel, and the tools to do that would be the same whether the U.S. recognized Palestine or not.
In any case, this was never a serious proposal. It was an idea that has been floated about before, but gained no more traction than it has now. But Netanyahu went further than his usual grandstanding by bringing this to the whole Knesset, where it was supported by 99 of the 120 members, with only nine voting against the stance.
That this became an issue reflects the detachment from reality both in the Knesset and Washington. More than just a response to the rumors, this was also Israel’s way of objecting to the fact that U.S. President Joe Biden has been leading efforts to hammer out a comprehensive, and thoroughly unattainable, regional peace agreement as a way to end the slaughter in Gaza and for him to emerge as a hero ahead of elections in November.
The Knesset vote was a reminder — one that should not have been needed — that Israel is not going to accept a Palestinian state next to it. That doesn’t only apply to the far right of Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, nor is it confined to the hard right represented by Likud. The so-called “moderate” former leader of the Labor Party, and current Israeli President Isaac Herzog said at a conference in Munich this week that a Palestinian state would be a reward for terrorism. This sentiment is overwhelming among Israeli Jews.
The man who is currently Netanyahu’s most likely successor, Benny Gantz, has stated his own opposition to a Palestinian state, and even Yair Lapid, who works to maintain a good relationship with Democrats in the U.S., voted in favor of the resolution and, while he still supports a two-state solution, even he admits there is no possibility of it in the near future. Israel has been explicit about its rejection of this fantasy and has expressed that in more than mere statements; the expansion of settlements and the deep embedding of infrastructure connecting settlements physically, economically, and politically to Israel have made that whole idea impossible.
But Biden goes merrily along with the fantasy. As a result, other countries, who know better — Arab states, for the most part — continue to speak and act within the two-state framework, vying for their own interests and goals.
The utility of the two-state paradigm
It’s easy enough to write off the obsession with the two-state paradigm to simple inertia, sticking with a familiar formula. Or perhaps one can chalk it up to ignorance, something which, when it comes to the Middle East, there is no shortage of in Washington. Perhaps they simply don’t understand the scope of what it would mean to create a viable Palestinian state over Israeli rejectionism and the obstacles that the settlements, as well as an Israeli public that sees every Palestinian as a threat, present.
The Israeli right, as right-wingers everywhere do, is willing to sacrifice the diplomatic and rhetorical advantages the two-state paradigm offers on the altar of blinding, ideological hate. More thoughtful and moderate camps, such as that led by Lapid and, to a lesser extent, Gantz, understand the utility of endless negotiations toward a goal that is not within reach and gets farther away every day. Is that, perhaps, what motivates Biden and the broader Democratic foreign policy machine?
That might be a fair assessment, though it doesn’t fully explain this desperate clinging to a failed paradigm. The U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Jack Lew, recently illustrated the view and the extent to which it is delusional.
“Now is a moment in time when there is a real possibility that by engaging in normalization and negotiations with Saudi Arabia, there can be a demilitarized Palestinian state. But Israel will have to make that choice. Any solution must ensure the safety and security of Israel…there cannot be a militarized Palestinian state.”
While Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has shown himself capable of accepting all kinds of unreasonable conditions, it is difficult to imagine that many Palestinians, even those who believe the two-state solution is still possible and preferable, are willing to accept the idea of a de-militarized state after what has happened since October 7. I can certainly attest that not a single Palestinian I know or have heard from would accept this, but more than such a subjective notion, the idea defies logic.
Palestinians would be living next to a country that has attempted a genocide against them, slaughtered 30,000 people and counting, loosed its terrorist settlers on civilians in the West Bank, militarized the holiest sites in Jerusalem to limit or bar Palestinians from going to them, occupied them for more than five decades, instituted a violent apartheid regime over them, and committed countless human rights violations.
That’s only a partial list, and we can add to it the fact that the state in question has virtually unlimited support from the greatest military power in the world and is itself a regional military hegemon. And Palestinians are expected to live in a demilitarized state next to that one? You’d have to imagine that even passionate supporters of Israel who might obscenely and falsely say that Palestinians brought such terms upon themselves would recognize that no one would accept such a condition.
Yet the United States very clearly believes Palestinians will.
That belief in Washington certainly reflects ignorance of the Palestinians, and also a profound bigotry toward them that helps to convince American leaders that Palestinians will not react like other human beings. But there is another factor that leads to the desperate clinging to the two-state paradigm.
This paradigm allows the United States to maintain the illusion that it is somehow working toward peace and a future that, if not wholly just, is at least one where Palestinians can be free and Israelis “secure.” This, too, is an illusion, as it would accomplish neither of those goals without a lot more than is even being thought of (such as compensation to Palestinians for over 75 years of dispossession and the right of return for starters, both of which would be indispensable if a mythical Palestinian state were to be viable and stable), but that doesn’t really matter. As long as the two-state discourse is alive, it can be presented as a pragmatic and ethical idea for those who want to believe that it is so.
How important is that? Israel’s right-wing government places no importance on it, which is why they so blithely dispense with the very idea. Its more center-right and centrist elements recognize its usefulness and want to work with the United States to revive the idea so that it can again be sold to Israelis after October 7 and the destruction of Gaza start to fade into history. The endless peace process would then resume, more hopelessly than ever.
But the United States, particularly the Democrats, desperately needs to portray themselves as do-gooders in this conflict. That illusion has been fraying for years, but it has been utterly destroyed since October 7.
It’s not just Biden, either. The centrist Democratic old guard has been all in as well, essentially parroting Biden’s talking points. This is devastating to the U.S. standing in the world. Even though the Global South has generally found the U.S. to be hypocritical and racist in its application of human rights norms, diplomacy, and international law, Gaza has taken that negative view to unprecedented heights.
This is demonstrated not only by the two cases against Israel at the International Court of Justice, but also by the recent break in relations between Brazil and Israel. Addressing the African Union, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, commonly known as Lula, called out Israel’s genocide and compared it to the Holocaust, saying, “It’s not a war of soldiers against soldiers. It’s a war between a highly prepared army and women and children…What’s happening in the Gaza Strip with the Palestinian people hasn’t happened at any other moment in history. Actually, it has happened: when Hitler decided to kill the Jews.”
Israel called Lula a “Holocaust denier,” and declared him persona non grata. It’s an absurd label, as Lula’s statement explicitly affirms the Holocaust and all its horrors, but such invective is standard for Israel. Lula’s words express how much the world — including a great many Jews of conscience — is appalled by Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza.
While the United States has thus far tried to stay outside of that dispute — going only so far as Secretary of State Antony Blinken telling Lula the U.S. “disagreed” with his statements — its careful approach reflects the difficulty it faces when a country with important ties to the U.S. engages sharply with Israel.
For Republicans, this isn’t a problem. They can stand fully with racism, apartheid, and genocide, and their voters and partners are good with that. Democrats, who have a moderate or liberal voter base and want the United States to be seen as a leader who tries to get to the moral high ground, need something to show themselves as workers for peace, however much of a sham that presentation may be. The two-state paradigm is how they do it, and they are not about to let reality interfere with their illusions.
” Israel stated that its policy, according to reports, holds that “any permanent accord with the Palestinians must be reached through direct negotiations between the sides and not by international dictates.” “
Let’s see if we can find any examples of negotiations where one side is more powerful than the other. How about the Treaty of Nanking? Emphasis mine:
In the wake of China’s military defeat, with British warships poised to attack Nanjing, British and Chinese officials negotiated on board HMS Cornwallis anchored in the Yangtze at the city …The Qing government was obliged to pay the British government 6 million silver dollars for the opium that had been confiscated by Lin Zexu in 1839 (Article IV), 3 million dollars in compensation for debts that the merchants in Canton owed British merchants (Article V), and a further 12 million dollars in war reparations for the cost of the war (Article VI). The total sum of 21 million dollars was to be paid in instalments over three years and the Qing government would be charged an annual interest rate of 5 percent for the money that was not paid in a timely manner (Article VII).[6]
Then there’s the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1876:
Japan and Korea signed the ‘Japan Korea Treaty of Amity’ on 26 February 1876. Japan employed gunboat diplomacy to press Korea to sign this unequal treaty. The pact opened up Korea, as Commodore Matthew Perry’s fleet of Black Ships had opened up Japan in 1853….However, the treaty would eventually turn out to be the first of many unequal treaties signed by Korea; It gave extraterritorial rights to Japanese citizens in Korea, and forced the Korean government to open 3 ports to Japan, specifically Busan, Incheon and Wonsan. With the signing of its first unequal treaty, Korea became vulnerable to the influence of imperialistic powers; and later the treaty led Korea to be annexed by Japan.
As we can see from these examples – and there are many more – negotiations between unequal partners works just fine!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93Korea_Treaty_of_1876
One might think that one state, say Israel, cannot control another, say the United States, in what other states it recognises, say Palestine. But Israel is a land where the impossible happens
The thing is, Israel is more than happy with unilateral dictates, when it’s Israel making them and carrying them out, or when it’s their stooges in Washington that are protecting them by one lone veto at the UNSC.
Besides, was the establishment and recognition of Israel itself not a unilateral dictate?
Let’s cut to the chase. There is only one nation on earth preventing the full recognition and establishment of a Palestinian state. The US.
If Biden said today that he formally recognizes the Palestinian state with it’s final borders and security coordination to be negotiated between both nations under the adjudication of the UNSC with no vetos allowed, this would be a done deal by Monday afternoon. Simple as that. Israel would fall in line and be evacuating Settlers in time for Shabbat dinner Friday.
The only issue standing in the way is backbone and US political interests.
Lest we forget that Truman’s immediate recognition of Israel in 1948 was not out of some altruistic love, compassion, or biblical prophecy for the Jewish people. It was because he and his constituents didn’t want hundreds of thousands of Jews flooding into the US after WW2 and having those hordes of Jewish refugees as far away as possible, like say in the Middle East for example, was a win-win solution for him. He didn’t have to answer for all of those unwanted refugees (or for turning their boats away) and he got to look like some biblical savior of God’s chosen people.
Which brings us to the Palestinians. They don’t have a state, because it’s not in Biden’s, or any of his predecessors’, political interests. No more, no less.
You can bet your last dollar that if tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees fleeing the genocide in Gaza started arriving at our borders, there would be immediate action and a desire to recognize Palestinian statehood. Which is why there has been so much pressure being put on Egypt, Qatar, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to absorb them, and on Israel to keep them trapped in Gaza since Oct 8th. To the point that the US hasn’t even lifted a finger to evacuate hundreds of IT’S OWN CITIZENS in Gaza being bombed and slaughtered with IT’S OWN 2,000 lb bombs.
Mitchell is right when he says, ‘As long as the two-state discourse is alive, it can be presented as a pragmatic and ethical idea for those who want to believe that it is so.’ [my emphasis]
But in reality, there is nothing ethical or pragmatic about ethnic partition. Whatever the contours of the two states, they leave the Jewish ethnocracy intact, which is the whole point anyway, and deliver one or more dependent Palestinian bantustans. Beyond the general, in principle, issues, moreover, as things stand in the here and now, recognition of a Palestinian state means recognition of the quisling PA.
I have a long view on this Democratic Party fantasy about a two-state solution. The Democratic leadership needs to learn through painful defeats at the ballot box that AIPAC money will no longer enable them to control Congress and the Presidency. It might mean some Republican success in this election year, but that short-term cost is necessary in order to purge the Democratic Party of the blight called AIPAC.
I’m a single issue voter this year. Anything single-issue billionaire Haim Saban supports is something I will oppose.