In
the end there were only nine states voting against Palestine on
November 29, 2012: the United States and Israel, the usual suspects;
Canada, with its pro-Zionism prime minister Stephen Harper; the US
satellite state of a post-Noriega Panama; the Czech Republic, holding
up the Europeans' flag; and four mini states from islands scattered
over the Pacific – Nauru, Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Island
– tied to either the U.S. or Australia by political or defense
agreements.
The
first time Palestine had directly gone to the United Nations was 38
years ago. It was Yasser Arafat, the chairman of the Palestine
Liberation Organization (the P.L.O.) who pleaded his people's cause
before the General Assembly in November of 1974. To no avail: the
Palestinians and the P.L.O. had the bad reputation of being
terrorists, a threat to Israel, but even a bigger menace to the Arab
states around them. Forced to leave Palestine, the Palestinians had
sought refuge in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. They eventually
endangered the regimes in power in Amman and Damascus and, in 1975,
became a triggering factor of the civil war that devastated Lebanon.
pleading his people's cause: Yasser Arafat, New York, 1974
Yasser
Arafat died on November 11, 2004. He passed away without achieving
any of the essential goals he had espoused at various stages of his
career: the destruction of Israel, the peace with the Jewish state he
backed after 1988, or the creation of an independent Palestinian
state with Jerusalem as its capital. “No other individual so
embodied the Palestinians' plight as Yasser Arafat”, Judith Miller
wrote in her obituary in the New York Times: “their dispersal,
their statelessness, their hunger for a return to a homeland lost to
Israel.”
Yasser
Arafat was 75 years old at the time of his death, worn out by a
lifelong fight for Palestine. But did he die of natural causes? Or
was he murdered, poisoned, as some believe? It was a strange
coincidence that Yasser Arafat's remains were exhumed to finally
determine the cause of his death the same week that his successor
Mahmoud Abbas went to the United Nations again, to ask the General
Assembly to elevate Palestine to a “non-member observer state”.
Pulled apart by the internal strife between Hamas in Gaza and Fatah
in the West Bank, the Palestinians are in dire need of a new
integrating figure. A post-mortem Arafat, and particularly a
martyred, poisoned Arafat, can again be that figure. A weak Abbas,
discredited by the United States, suspected of selling out to the
enemy, cannot.
On
November 29, Palestine celebrated a victory at the United Nations,
but now what? There was a Palestine in New York but there is no
Palestine in Palestine. One day after the UN vote, Israel approved
the
construction of 3,000 new homes in Jewish settlements in the West
Bank and east Jerusalem, basically saying “fuck you!” to
Palestine, the United Nations and to the world. The two-state
solution that some had dreamed of realizing after New York is off to
a bad start. Anyway: a two-state arrangement will never work. Both
projects, the Israeli project of a Jewish state and the Palestinian
project of an independent state, are too big to be confined to the
borders of 1967. Israel needs strategic depth, needs buffer zones in
order to feel secure. For that reason, Israel occupies the West Bank
and the Golan, controls Gaza and sheds an all-seeing eye on Lebanon,
flying over the area in daily breaches of international law.
A
Palestine under demographic stress cannot survive in a two-state
solution neither, as Stratfor
explains, in an excellent analysis from May 2011 entitled “the
Geopolitics of Palestine”. Palestine must seek a more radical
outcome – the elimination of Israel – to be viable in the long
term, politically and economically. Not being able to achieve this
goal by itself, Palestine would need other Arab states to take up the
task and defeat Israel. This won't happen. It is not in the interest
of Arab states to go decisively after Israel and help create a strong
Palestine.
dead on arrival: the State of Palestine
Instead
of being en
route
to a two-state solution, as untenable it might be, we are actually
witnessing the attempt of creating a three-state solution. Gaza and
the West Bank have become very different places with different
realities and it is hard to see them placed under one umbrella state
of Palestine. And more so since these two entities are physically
separated and would entirely depend on Israel to permit land or air
transit between them. A negative example comes to mind, Pakistan from
1947 to 1971, with its eastern wing Bangladesh cut off from the
Pakistani heartland by hostile India. This situation ultimately ended
in a bloody war and the split of these territories into two states.
It would take the persuasion of a figure like Arafat to hold Gaza and the West Bank together.
It would take the persuasion of a figure like Arafat to hold Gaza and the West Bank together.
A
two-state solution being dead on arrival - a recipe for a disastrous
divorce and a precursor for a three-state solution; a one-state
solution impossible to implement: Palestine is caught in a
geopolitical trap.
Let me then accept your bets on the following
question.
What will be first: the emergence of a sustainable
Palestine or the disappearance of Nauru, Palau, Micronesia and the
Marshall Island due to the effects of global warming? Affaires à
suivre.
This post was first published at Your Middle East: here.


"What will be first: the emergence of a sustainable Palestine or the disappearance of Nauru, Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Island due to the effects of global warming?"
ReplyDeleteAlso..will we see it answered in our lifetime!?
depends how long you plan to live... Oscar Niemeyer, famous archtitect, died today, age 105...
ReplyDelete