As the founders of the United States wrote in the Declaration of Independence, an effectively governed state that keeps order and fosters the well-being of its citizens is an essential means of guaranteeing basic human rights and civil liberties. It is also something that the Palestinians have been denied for too long now. The world seems to have delegated the decision of whether and when the Palestinians will have their own state to Israel. But negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel were already unlikely to lead to a viable Palestinian state before the election of Benjamin Netanyahu as Israeli prime minister. Now it is no longer certain they will continue. Netanyahu's speech at a Likud central committee meeting in 2002 sums up his view of a Palestinian state: "Not today, not tomorrow, not ever." [See http://web.archive.org/web/20130825085706/http://www.netanyahu.org/binnetspeeca.html;
http://web.archive.org/web/20130820035747/http://imeu.net/news/printer0024179.shtml
] Although Netanyahu's stance has evolved little since then, it is time for the rest of the world, and especially the U.S., to adopt a new one. To retake the initiative, the U.S. must unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state now, with the expectation that its allies will almost certainly follow its lead -- and that Israel will at the very least acquiesce at first, and in all likelihood eventually follow suit. The U.S. Constitution gives the president the power to recognize a foreign state, without the need to consult Congress. President Barack Obama should announce that the U.S. will recognize Palestine, within the "green line" borders, subject to three conditions: First, there should be fresh elections for the Palestinian parliament and the formation of a government responsible for the whole territory. Second, the government of Palestine should accept -- with explicit reference to Israel, which it must recognize -- the ordinary obligations of every state not to attack other states and to prevent the use of its territory to launch attacks on other states or their citizens. Third, the government of Palestine should guarantee the safety and rights of minorities living within its territories, including Jews living in the West Bank. The conditions should not require any explicit acknowledgement of Israel's "right to exist as a Jewish state," the so-called "Recognition-Plus." Enforcement of the second condition would be enough to protect Israel's existence. On the other hand, Israel should not be expected to dismantle its West Bank settlements. Settlers who remain there will simply be Israeli citizens resident in Palestine (or, if they choose, citizens of Palestine), just as there are Palestinian residents and citizens of Israel. Neither should there be any demand that Israel accept a "right of return" for Palestinian refugees. In fact, the proposal requires nothing of Israel except acquiescence. Afterwards, the two states would be free to negotiate further accords, which could include border adjustments and voluntary exchanges of population. But they would be doing so as two sovereign nations with recognized borders. Will the Palestinians accept these conditions? Possibly not, at least not at first. But the offer should remain on the table. Even if they never accept it, the situation will be none the worse for it having been made. In that case, the "peace process" can continue down its endless path to nowhere. Will Hamas win the fresh elections? Possibly. But regardless of who constitutes the future government of Palestine, recognition will be withheld until it undertakes not to make or allow attacks on Israel. (A Palestinian government will of course need financial aid and other help to maintain control throughout its territory.) Will Israel acquiesce? The Netanyahu government will probably object. The U.S. might even have to face down the threat of military action. But acceptance should come when Israelis consider what their long-term options are. Israel will be better off living next to a Palestinian state whose government is committed not to make or allow attacks on Israel than it will be if there is no settlement to the current cycle of violence. Enforcing that commitment may turn out to be beyond the Palestinian government's power. But even in that case, Israel and the U.S. will be no worse off than they are now. The "peace process" before Annapolis was based on the proposition that the Palestinians don't deserve to have their own state until they are all peaceable and well behaved. This puts the cart before the horse. As was well understood by John Locke and other writers whose ideas are reflected in the Declaration of Independence, human beings need government in order to become peaceable and well-behaved. The U.S. approach must now recognize that the restraint of violence can only be accomplished by the non-violent members of a society. Only Palestinian moderates can stop the Palestinian extremists' rockets, and they are more likely to succeed with the legitimacy -- and force -- of a recognized sovereign state than as collaborators with an occupying power. John Kilcullen taught political philosophy at Macquarie University, Sydney, for 25 years. He is now retired and lives in Canberra. He has followed the Israeli-Arab conflict closely since the end of World War II, with increasing concern. |
Email
Print
Share
Reprint