Pressure is building for recognition of a Palestinian state

[moniss]

with some countries and I note that Australia has also said recently it is considering recognition. We'll see if it is all smoke or if there is substance. Will designation as a state make accountability easier? Will it make international protection force intervention easier to get through the UN? It will be interesting to see what happens as far as embassy placement for these nations if they recognize a Palestinian state. Will the international community look at the existing Israeli policies/programs as null and void in the new state of Palestine?

https://www.irishtimes.com/politics/2024/04/12/ireland-working-with-spain-and-others-to-build-support-for-recognition-of-palestine/

[ripcord]

1. After they have had presidential elections

Abbas is a dictator who hasn't held elections in over 18 years.

[moniss]

3. I'm wondering if

elections held and run by Abbas would be doable or would an "international" presence be required in some form? When I say "international" I mean it in the sense of keeping Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Russia etc. and their various "groups" they support from exerting major influence/control.

[Voltaire2]

6. Ah settler ethics.

[jimfields33]

8. I'd rather them be their own country.

That way both Israel and Palestinians can do their own thing. Both places would be better off.

[LeftInTX]

18. That's what I say.

Time for Israel to kick their 57 year old kid out of the basement!

[jimfields33]

22. Yep. Absolutely.

[dutch777]

2. Who speaks for the State of Palestine-- Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Authority...?

I am all for a Palestinian state and well aware of the issues of land and global politics that stand in the way. Further, that establishing land that is Palestinian and that has a united government for all Palestinians is considered an existential threat in Israel, if it takes land from Israel or borders Israel. As hardened as Oct 7 made Israel, I am not sure they would even support a Palestinian homeland anywhere on the planet. If there was a complete and working governmental structure that truly represented all the Palestinians this may make for sense. Otherwise it is just a concept with nothing tangible except good intentions.

[moniss]

5. I'm thinking that some of the

countries considering recognition now are thinking strategically about how to make an "international" presence easier to happen as a counter to those you mention. Right now the situation in the West Bank needs a major reboot because it is not sustainable like this for much longer with the groups you mentioned seeming to exert an increasing influence. A couple of months ago I pointed out that the UN strategy for maintaining force "zones" in the Sinai has for the most part worked well. Maybe the "international" presence could occur concurrently with statehood recognition based on the 1967 borders. I would note that the PA has said that they are willing to negotiate regarding borders but only after the international community, meaning the UN, adheres to their already adopted resolutions regarding borders. They have said this in the context of resolving the other issues like compensation, right of return, natural resources etc.

But obviously all of this needs to happen when the voice of the Palestinians themselves is freely heard regarding leadership. Once they express it, but only if judged to have been freely expressed, then the world should accept that leadership as speaking for the Palestinians even if we in the West etc. may not agree with all positions taken by that leadership. We of course would not accept a continuation of violence but as far as a border line being moved here or there or an exchange of resources for other items like compensation or right of return then we should respect that expression and not "take sides".

[dutch777]

24. Don't know if it is possible, but key will be making Israel feel safe & the true free will of the Palestinians in a...

democratic process as you note. While Hamas is severely depleted militarily, that is not true for Hezbollah and how they could be disarmed or at least contained so that they would not exert undue pressure in a democratic process will be a big challenge. Definitely will take a UN multi-national force with probably a significant American contingent for the Israelis to even consider it. And even then if Bibi and the right wing extremists still control the government, not sure if it is possible. At some point all the rockets and other long range threats to Israel will have to be confiscated. While the Palestinian Authority or whatever name/organization becomes the government of Palestine, beyond small arms for police like actions, having major offensive capabilities like rockets and artillery will be a threat to the peace. Here's to hope!

[Voltaire2]

7. That would be their problem.

[Beastly Boy]

4. Whoever recognizes a Palestinian state, should be aware that

the state they are recognizing is divided in two by the civil war, with one part being governed by terrorists at war with a sovereign state, and the other by an octogenarian dictator, and both parts occupied almost entirely by the aforementioned sovereign state.

Other than an extra vote for the pan-Arab faction at the UNGA, the merits of recognizing such an unstable state before it has a snowflake's chance to ever become self-governed escape me.

[moniss]

10. As I mentioned in some other responses

I think this may be about more than just "recognition" for it's own sake so to speak. I'm thinking that possibly the thinking behind closed doors may be that recognition might make inserting an "international force/presence" an easier thing to get through the UN. Similar to the scenario in the Sinai which for the most part has gone OK. The West Bank situation cannot keep going on because it is a building powder keg. I don't believe that the situation there can resolve by continued involvement by the armed radicals of the groups like Hamas, Hezbollah etc. and by the continued presence of Israel. Either one is a match to the powder keg in the eyes of the other. But trying to get approval for a Sinai type force just as a substitute for the sides alone will not be likely to be seen as anything but another "occupier" unless it is done in conjunction with a concurrent move that gives the people there a reason to accept that "international force/presence" as protecting their "state" and allowing them to have a voice in matters free from fear of retaliation or intimidation that allows the corrupt leaders to be gone and new leaders to discuss the resolution of borders, natural resources etc.

Although the Sinai situation with Egypt has differences obviously to the West Bank situation I haven't seen any articles that Israel is unhappy or dissatisfied with the "international force" approach there. I think at this point we have to try something different because I think we all see the unlikely success of maintaining the approach in the West Bank by any of the parties involved. It just isn't working.

[Beastly Boy]

16. As things stand now, I believe Israel is on board with international peacekeeping force in Gaza,

regardless of any change in status of the occupied territories. I doubt Hamas is, regardless of what happens in the West Bank. This is an additional source (one of many) to the friction between the literally warring factions that would comprise the proposed Palestinian state. It wouldn't be Israel, but the newly formed Palestinian state that would be unable to reach consensus on international peacekeepers. The presence of international forces may even provoke armed hostilities within the nominal Palestinian state. And the hostilities may take place even before the government of this state is established to consent to the peacekeeping forces in the first place.

I question the wisdom and practicality of recognizing the Palestinian state at this time. I don't believe that the idea of the Palestinians governing themselves for the benefit of the Palestinians is realistic in the current climate. For decades, the Palestinians were discouraged from building the institutions necessary for the survival as an independent state, both by Israel and especially by the member states of the Arab League. If the international community wishes for a Palestinian state to become a sustainable reality, it should seek to assist the Palestinians to first and foremost build those institutions before recognizing Palestine as a state. Otherwise, the consequences of recognizing Palestine will not go any further than an additional vote in the UN.

[moniss]

23. I agree with what should have been taking place but here

we are. The concurrent establishment of forces and leadership can happen but if all that happened was an international force in the West Bank and a continuation of Abbas/Fatah then it would be a failure. There has to be a change that would be concurrent with Israel withdrawing, perhaps in stages and an aggressive posture toward ridding the "state" of the Hamas/Hezbollah etc. goons. As it is now any action of any kind about anything that is done by Israel is hated and rejected by the Palestinians in the West Bank. At the same time they are intimidated/terrorized by a minority of their own population acting as thugs and they know the corruption of Fatah/Abbas so they certainly don't feel free to speak. So my point is that trying a single thing at a time isn't going to get much change. Even if Israel withdrew tomorrow and dismantled every settlement you would still have the other problems. Even if the other problems suddenly disappeared we would still have the occupation and settlements and all of that resentment. So people are in a vice so to speak.

The building of what we would like to see as "stable and secure institutions" for governance takes a fair amount of time and an absence of conflict and terror groups. The way we're going now doesn't get us there and I don't see the surrounding countries making any serious moves to embrace a withdrawal of those groups. So the only organization with any actual legal authority in the West Bank is the UN. Just depending on "some day" as a strategy to bring change has been a colossal failure of conference after summit after conference and still here we are. Yes other countries in the region have made peace with Israel over the 75+ years but there can be little doubt that the actual matter of the West Bank, the Palestinians and peace is worse off now than in years past and it wasn't dandy then either but it is certainly worse now.

Over history there were plenty of examples of Palestinian villages and Jewish villages living in piece with each other side by side. There are plenty of examples of Palestinians and Jews defending each other during the Mandate when extreme forces from either side came to attack. I cannot believe in my heart that those people with that care in their hearts have ceased to exist. Those are the people who must be empowered in the West Bank and in Israel. Otherwise all we have is periods of war and fractured ceasefires escalating without end.

[brooklynite]

9. Too many people have illusions about what "international protection forces" do...

They do NOT take sides in wars. They act as a buffer to maintain relative peace.

Even if the UN recognizes Palestine, they won't get involved in the Israel-Gaza conflict, just like they haven't gotten involved in Russia-Ukraine.

[moniss]

11. That is precisely why they are needed

is because it is not "taking sides". That buffer has worked very well in the Sinai for a long time now. The UN is never going to get Russia to back off the veto in the Security Council for their attack of Ukraine. I think that the SC will look at the Israel/West Bank issue differently enough to make it possible. It serves none of the major powers for the Middle East to explode over the West Bank. The alliances and repercussions could escalate very quickly beyond any ability to easily pull back by various parties. The limiting of effectiveness/withdrawal of factions hostile to each other in the West Bank is imperative. It is a rapidly building powder keg right now. The "international force/presence" concurrent with actions of recognition may be our best hope to get to meaningful elections/governance in the West Bank. It may fail but the alternatives are worse.

So if we go as we have been with more and more settlements, more and more hostility between parties and more and more ineffective leadership it will not fail to explode over and over and likely escalate.

The idea of a one state solution doesn't work for all manner of reasons discussed at length over the years. So we have to try something different or we keep heading toward disastrous events for all concerned.

[brooklynite]

12. So if there are UN forces on the Gaza border, there won't be any Hamas attacks?

[Ace Rothstein]

13. Yeah, that isn't working out too well in Lebanon.

Around 13k UN troops and Hezbollah operates openly. I doubt UN troops will give pause to Hamas and their activities.

[moniss]

15. The UN forces

are restricted in what they are allowed to do. Also they are not set up as a "barrier" force like in the Sinai. If you put troops in an area and tell them more or less don't shoot anybody it is not going to deter anybody and if you put troops in with just the idea of maintaining the status quo then nothing changes. 75+ years of doing things the current way hasn't worked.

[moniss]

14. My comment is about

the West Bank. Perhaps had there been UN forces throughout Gaza over the last many years things could have been different. People fought against it. If you put in an international force now they will still have to deal with Hamas and a destroyed region. Nobody is saying it will happen or be better instantly but it certainly hasn't worked in over 75 years going the other way.

[LeftInTX]

17. It was tabled by the UNSC yesterday

It has to pass the UNSC otherwise any recognition is non-binding...Even though some countries recognize Palestine, they are not a state.

I say get it over with and let them become a state, but the UNSC passed it over.

[moniss]

19. Yes I know but the move by independent countries to give recognition

may be a behind the scenes pressure thing like I pointed out elsewhere. It gains countries nothing otherwise if it is just idle chatter on their part. I believe there is more here because I think most countries are of the opinion now that this cannot just go on and on and that it is building to something bigger. So how do the states around the world make this go a different direction than the previous 75+ years is the question.

[LeftInTX]

20. It is up to the United States and we have total veto power.

Everyone can kumbaya until the cows come home and it won't make a difference

[moniss]

21. That was my point

that enough "independent" action by countries can give cover for the US to not veto an international force scheme. I just don't see any point to the various countries even talking about it unless there is a larger picture. Just chattering themselves gets them nothing so why bother?

[David__77]

25. It is a one state reality in which millions lack voting rights.