Could a Palestinian state be created anytime soon and what stands in its way? Radio VR is discussing the issue with Dr. Meir Litvak (Israel), Dr. Taleb Ibrahim (Syria) and Gidi Grinstein (Israel).
The international support for the establishment of the Palestinian state is growing. On Tuesday Italian Foreign Minister Federica Mogherini stated that speedy establishment of the Palestinian state is the way for sustainable stability in the Middle East.
At the beginning of the month Sweden's new Prime Minister Stefan Loefven announced that the country would recognize a Palestinian state, becoming the first EU member in Western Europe to do so. Washington was quick to describe Stockholm's recognition as "premature".
Another country – the UK, which had abstained from the vote back in 2012, seems to be changing heart. Late Monday British MPs voted in favor of a non-binding motion to "recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution".
According to Britain's ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, British public opinion has been affected by Israeli summer military operation in Gaza. “I think that this vote is a sign of shifting public opinion in the UK and indeed beyond," he told Israeli public radio.
The news has been welcomed by Palestinians and criticized by Israel. Senior Palestine Liberation Official Hanan Ashrawi said the vote "will enhance the European voices calling for the recognition of the State of Palestine and will create the right environment for the international community to grant the Palestinian people legal parity and rights".
Israel, though, stated that a vote by British parliament in favor of recognizing a Palestinian state risked undermining the prospects for peace.
Says Meir Litvak, an associate professor in the Department of Middle Eastern History and the Director of the Alliance Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University:
I think there are two ideas behind it. One is to pressure Israel to change its current policy and be more flexible towards the Palestinian authority, to go back to the negotiations with the Palestinian authority in order to produce the results. I think it is also a reflection of the great European displeasure with the current Israeli policy – settlements, the war in Gaza and, generally, what the Europeans perceive as Israeli inflexibility.
Now, will it produce meaningful negotiations? I don’t know. There is a danger that the European pressure simply on Israel may convince the Palestinians that they can get a political consensus from Israel, without making any necessary concessions of their own in the long run. And this could be counterproductive.
We have seen it in the past, at least in 2000 and some time before, when the Palestinians thought that if they could get the Europeans and others on their side, that would mean they could then get anything they want from Israel, without making concessions from their own side. And this was one of the reasons why the negotiations failed in the past.
Pressuring the two sides may be beneficial. But I think both sides need to be told that they will have to make concessions.
But do you think anyone has any ideas about what kind of statehood, what kind of borders we are talking about?
Meir Litvak: The Europeans speak about the 1967’s borders with minor modifications. This is also what the Americans are speaking about. Of course, what remains vague in all of these statements, is unanswered questions like the security arrangements and the questions of refugees, which are the major issues.
So, 1967’s borders, right?
Meir Litvak: With modifications. They realize that they may need some modifications.
But they don’t seem to be valid anymore on the ground. Do you think that the settlers who now live beyond those borders would be willing to move out?
Meir Litvak: We can divide the settlements into two parts. 80% of the settlers live in settlements which are not far from the 1967’s borders. And these are about 20% of the settlements. And 80% of the settlements are small isolated places with only about 20% of the settlers. So, it will not be too difficult to remove, if there is an agreement to remove at least 80% of the settlements. And then, let’s say, some modifications can be found for some of the major settlements.
It is going to be very difficult, it is not going to be easy. But let’s put it this way. If you look at politics as the art of the possible and politics as the choice between alternatives, the two-state solution is not ideal, it may not be easy to achieve, it may be too late. I don’t know, but I hope not. But certainly, one-state solution is the worst solution in every way possible. So, I think from the Israeli point of view, whatever difficult the two-state solution is or will be, it should be preferable to the one-state solution.
And how about Gaza? Is Israel prepared to talk with Hamas or are Palestinians prepared to dismiss Hamas in Gaza?
Meir Litvak: Israel is already talking to the Palestinian Government, even though it includes Hamas. I mean, Israel, while it declares that it doesn’t talk to Hamas or does not recognize Hamas, in fact, if you look at the practical arrangements, only yesterday 700 trucks carrying cement and iron came to Gaza. Israel is talking to Hamas indirectly all the time for the past 7 years.
Now, it will be very difficult to remove Hamas from Gaza. I don’t think the Palestinian authority can do it. Unless there is popular revolt in Gaza, it will not happen. I'm not sure such a revolt can take place. And even if Hamas is removed from the control of Gaza, Hamas will remain an important factor in Gaza.
At the same time, if Hamas wants to be a recognized political actor, Hamas has to change its policy. Hamas cannot claim to be a political actor and, at the same time, in Arabic, to its own public, call for the destruction of Israel. This game has to stop. Hamas has to change its policy, if Hamas wants to be an acceptable recognized international player.
One of the crucial peacemaking attempts – the Oslo accord – had tragic implications.
Meir Litvak: I think there will be opposition inside Israel and, certainly, opposition in Hamas. There will be an opposition especially from settlers, certain right-wing elements in the Likud. But I think the Israeli Government will have to consider its long-term policy and will it be willing to face an increasing isolation and pressure or change its course.
The same thing with the Palestinians. I think the way Hamas has been handling itself in the past 10 years was disastrous to the Palestinians. It has brought nothing but suffering and destruction for the Palestinians. Also, I think Hamas and the Palestinians have to realize that the Hamas’s way is not the right way. And I think the right-wing Israelis also have to realize that their current policy may eventually lead to a one-state solution – something they don’t want and that would be very bad for Israel.
I think both sides have to reconsider their policies. I have to say that, again, I think there is a difference between Hamas calling for the destruction of Israel and the illiberal problematic positions of the Israeli rights, which I oppose, but they are not the same as Hamas’s.
Taleb Ibrahim, Syrian political analyst based in Damascus:
I don’t think that this is wrong. It is a very good thing, but, yes, you have a right to ask why at this time. I think now we are witnessing a very great change in the ME. And as you see, there is a great escalation in terrorism and in international terrorism. There are a lot of problems here in the ME. We have the ME crisis. We have the Syrian crisis. We have the Iranian nuclear program. We have the Iraqi situation. We have the Kurdish crisis with Turkey and with the ISIS.
So, I think some people in the West now, they think that if we find a solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, that will be very much helpful in fighting terrorism and in defeating terror. I think this is the most important drive for them. This is one issue.
Another issue, if you look at the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it the most complicated problem in the ME and on this problem the ME has been divided. Now Iran is playing a very important role in the ME and they have an excuse, as they are fighting for the Palestinian people. Some Palestinian resistance movements are fighting for the same issue.
So, I think that when the Western countries will find a resolution to this case or to this crisis, I think they believe that they can play a very important role in the future of the ME. This is another issue from my point of view.
But as far as I understand, the Israeli Government is pretty much opposed to this.
Taleb Ibrahim: The Israeli Government is now in a corner. They cannot recognize the Palestinian state. And they cannot bring a resolution without having the Palestinian state. And all of us remember when the ex-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said – Jordan is the homeland of Palestinians, Palestine is the land of Israel. Because of this and other cases Israel is now very much confused and they will not recognize the Palestinian state, and they are, at the same time, unable to prevent others from recognizing it.
But when we are talking about the recognition of the Palestinian state, we are coming to a crucial question of borders. And after the latest operation conducted by Israel in Gaza not much has been left of the Palestinian state.
Taleb Ibrahim: With respect to the international law, do you remember the UN Security Council’s decision 181 which established the state of Israel. This was a very important resolution. Under this resolution the borders between Israel and Palestine were drawn. But Israel in the war of 1967 occupied the West Bank and Gaza, and the Sinai from Egypt and the Golan Heights from Syria. Now the Israelis have been withdrawn from the Sinai and this withdrawal was based on the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty. And they have been withdrawn from the south of Lebanon by force.
So, I think if they want to make peace with Palestine, they should be withdrawn from Gaza and from the West Bank. And the border line is settled in the decision which I've mentioned to you. The resolution of the UN Security Council was talking about the two states. And some people now say that the border of June 4, 1967 is the border line between Palestine and Israel, and between Syria and Israel. This is a very important thing. And I think the matter of borders was the most complicated issue in the Israel-Syria negotiations and in the Israel-Palestine negotiations.
Do you think that the Israeli decision makers are going to accept that?
Taleb Ibrahim: The decision makers – who are the decision makers? I think Russia will accept, I think France, the UK, China will accept. But I don’t think the US will recognize and accept that. So, there are a lot of difficulties and obstacles on the road to announce and establish a new Palestinian state.
Would that bring more fighting to the region?
Taleb Ibrahim: I think that the region is burning now. All of the ME is boiling and burning indeed. It is a barrel of oil burning. Look at Syria, look at Iraq, look at the Palestinian territories, look at Egypt. Even Jordan is trembling now. I think it is very difficult to make a prophesy whether a new regional war will take place or not. I don’t think that Israel is able to launch a regional war.
They are threatening that they will wage war and they will put the peace process to an end. But, realistically, they are unable to that, because the regional war means that Syria should participate, Hezbollah should participate, Palestinian resistance and Iran. And if you remember, only a very small part of the resistance stretching from Gaza to Tehran participated in the last war and Israel couldn’t win.
How Israel can plan and wage war on this region from Iran to Syria, to Iraq, to Lebanon? I don’t think that they are able to. From my point of view, if Israel will launch a war, it would be the beginning of the resolution of the problem in Syria and Iraq, and in other areas in the ME, because everything that is now happening in the ME – the Arab Spring, terrorism etc – everything that is happening in the ME now is in the privilege of Israel. It is a very-very beneficiary thing for Israel to see all of these conflicts around Israel, and Israel is safe and secure.
Gidi Grinstein, the Founder and President of The Reut Institute:
I think it is very important for the listeners to remember that there is an absolute turmoil in the ME. And in trying to understand what is happening, which is obviously of historical magnitude (we are talking of implosion of entire countries, redrawing of borders, horrendous atrocities in Syria, in Iraq and in other places), I think the most useful framework that I've heard, is one used by Tom Friedman, the NY Times columnist and journalist. And his framing is that this is the tension between the world of order and the world of disorder.
So, the world of order is the countries including the European countries, the US, Russia, Israel, of course. These are the countries that are orderly, they are organized, they have a working economy, a working political system. On the other end of the spectrum we have countries that basically are failed states. And in these countries we have very-very rogue terrorist organizations. And we are seeing this in Africa – in West Africa, in East Africa, across the ME. And there are a few countries that are hanging in between, and they could go either way.
And I believe that this is the framework that is helpful to understand what is going on with regards to the Palestinian issue. The Israeli Government, I believe, is saying that the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians right now is stable and should not be destabilized by political measures or by external interventions. I believe the Europeans and the American administration believe in the opposite. They believe that the West Bank is actually hanging by a thread. And unless there is a movement forward in the direction of consolidating a two-state solution, the West Bank could actually tip the other way and become an area of instability.
So, I believe that what we are seeing right now, which is a diplomatic confrontation between the Government of Israel and the governments of Britain and Sweden, and Italy, and other countries about whether there should be progress on the Israeli-Palestinian political process towards a statehood reflects these deeper mindsets. The Israelis are saying – if it is not broken, don’t fix it. And the Europeans are saying – if we don’t move forward, we are going to slide back. And that is the confrontation.
But as far as I understand, the Israeli Government has, like you are saying, disagreed with the recent developments in the UK. And their point was that intervening into this process and trying to make it move faster would undermine the negotiation positions of Israel?
Gidi Grinstein: Right! There are two lines or two layers of argument, when you listen to the Israeli leadership. There is one layer of argument which is you heard from the people around the Prime Minister and from the Ministry of Defense, which is that this is not a good time for radical experimentations in the West Bank. The ME is in turmoil. Jordan is hanging by a thread. The last thing we want is another area of instability in the West Bank. This is the deeper position of the Israeli Government, the deeper interest of the Israeli Government which is being manifested in the statement – don’t intervene, let us work through the process and it will take as long as it is needed.
The other perspective is that standing still is actually regressing. And in order to stabilize the system (just like when you ride a bike, you need to move forward in order to stay stable on your bike) the other approach is – we have to move forward, otherwise the system will disintegrate. I'm talking about the Palestinian entity in the West Bank. So, this is the deeper disagreement that we are looking at. And then, there is the whole argument which is – don’t intervene in the negotiations, let the negotiation process exhaust itself.
My personal opinion is, and you’ve heard it from the Institute that I head, the Reut Institute has been saying very-very clearly for the last 8 years that the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections in January 2006 and the taking over of Gaza by Hamas in June 2007 have basically brought an end to the ability to reach an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians on permanent status. And therefore, the only way to make progress is through some sort of coordinated unilateralism. Which means that Israel actually has benefits to gain from the European move and from the Palestinian move to declare the Palestinian statehood right now.
I have to say that this position that my institute has taken is a minority position in Israel, but stand strongly behind it. We believe that the only way to make progress between the Israelis and the Palestinians at the moment is, first of all, bring into being the Palestinian state in the West Bank. Declare it and recognize it, and then work out the details of the long-term arrangements that state and the state of Israel.
But then, what happens to Gaza?
Gidi Grinstein: First of all, what happens to Gaza is primarily a Palestinian issue, before even it is an Israeli issue. There is a deep ideological and political divide between Gaza and the West Bank. In my view, as far as Israel is concerned, Gaza is an already de facto liberated Palestinian territory which is controlled by Hamas. And Hamas has declared a war on the state of Israel. The first act of governance of Hamas after it took over Gaza was to cancel the existing agreements with Israel and to declare a war on Israel, and to deny the right of the state of Israel to exist.
So, I believe that the perspective of Israel should be – Gaza is an already liberated Palestinian territory and now we should have a Palestinian state in the West Bank on the foundations of the Palestinian authority. And then, that state and the state of Israel should work out the future arrangements.
Hopefully, what is happening right now in Gaza, after this summer of violence, is actually putting all of us on a track of coexistence. I'm actually quite surprised at the speed with which the Israeli Government is taking very-very forthcoming measures towards Gaza, to allow Gaza the opportunity of a new future. And in this respect I think all of us can be hopeful.
