From Praeger Security International:
ON THE PROSPECTS FOR PALESTINIAN STATEHOOD
Looking to the Past for Directions in the Future
Palestinians submitted a petition for full membership status at the 66th annual United Nations (UN) General Assembly meeting in New York, which is currently in the decision-making stages. However, when considering the prospects for Palestinian statehood, we must first take into account the history of this long and winding path toward autonomy. The conflict between Jews and Arab Palestinians for control of the Holy Land is centuries old. In the past 100 years, there has been an escalation in tensions between both sides. In 1948, Israel became a state recognized by the international community, but not by Arab countries. A diaspora scattered Palestinian refugees throughout the Middle East, with pockets of terrorist groups emerging to fight for Palestinian statehood and self-determination. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was created in 1964 by President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt and members of the Arab League as an umbrella entity for terrorists and to promote Arab Nationalism. Consisting of Fatah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP), and a host of other factions, the PLO grew considerably in power and influence to represent a force in and of itself in Middle Eastern politics. But, while the PLO’s vision for statehood and self-determination were sound goals for uniting the Palestinian people, the organization was plagued by considerable internal and external turmoil. Internally, several leaders and factions within the PLO competed for power and influence rather than working together. In-fighting weakened the PLO and made it fragmented. It destabilized the regimes of Jordan and Lebanon, and it was forced into a geographically scattered exile more than once after military defeat by superior Israeli forces. Externally, the PLO was seen as a pawn by Arab leaders, particularly in Egypt and Syria. The vision for statehood was often pushed to the periphery.
While the PLO proclaimed the State of Palestine in 1988 under the leadership of Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian people have been unable to this day to build a strong and independent state governed through the principle of self-determination. Again the issue of statehood is up for consideration, but again the prospects are anything but optimistic. Palestinians have made some notable strides toward the vision of statehood since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993. The agreement outlined a strategy and timeline for Palestinians to build a state in the areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, during which time Israel would gradually withdraw its forces. The Oslo Accords and subsequent agreements promised a stable Palestinian state in theory, but in practice, the region continues to be plagued by conflict and acts of terrorism. Aside of ongoing tensions between Jews and Palestinians, there has been considerable ongoing unrest between internal Palestinian factions which has made the prospects for statehood uncertain.
In 2007, a civil war split Palestine between Fatah in the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip under separate political and military wings. In May 2011, Hamas and Fatah announced the signing of a reconciliation pact to again join forces as a single power with a unified government. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas asserted the pact would bring an end to four years of infighting, and Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal concurred that it would prompt a new era of cooperation through a joint government comprised of members from both factions. Yet, this proposal for unity has stalled, and periods of renewed fighting and persistent acts of terrorism continue to destabilize the prospects for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Ongoing tensions repeatedly suggest that over the long run, Palestinians continue to face significant obstacles that will prevent them from building a strong and stable state from the perspective of the international community. For instance, the end of the de facto truce between Hamas and Israel in August 2011 brought an onslaught of 20 rockets fired by Palestinian militants from the Gaza Strip into southern Israel that killed several Israelis, followed by retaliatory strikes by Israel that claimed the lives of several Palestinians in the Gaza area. While leaders of the Fatah and Hamas recognize the virtue of embracing a stand of political pragmatism in Palestinian politics, militants continue to resist the moderating trends of the nation’s leadership as a necessary step in building a stable state. The consequence has been that progress made toward the Palestinian vision of statehood and self-determination has been undermined by acts of terror.
The Palestinian Proposal for Statehood
The submission of the Palestinian proposal to the UN for a change in membership status by PA President Abbas in September sparked considerable support and opposition. Palestinians considered proposals to upgrade their status from an “observer entity” gained in 1974, to an “observer state,” a “nonmember state,” or a “member state.” They chose to apply for full member state status. Observer state status is one step higher than observer entity, and while it would not require action by the UN Security Council, it falls short of Palestine’s vision for statehood and recognition. Nonmember state status would provide a symbolic victory but would not allow Palestinians to challenge Israel’s occupation of its territory. Consequently, the application for full member state status most closely fulfills the Palestinian vision for statehood and self-determination. However, the obstacles for securing this standing are significant. The U.S. has indicated with certainty that it will veto the bid in the Security Council, and typically when the Security Council recommends membership, it then relays the request to the General Assembly. The European Union (EU) has also been split with a prospective vote on Palestinian statehood among its member states.
As with previous attempts to secure statehood, Palestinians must demonstrate that they are able to govern themselves as a sovereign nation capable of nurturing a stable political system and economy. Acts of terrorism by Palestinian militants have taken the spotlight from state building activities in the past, and members of the UN will consider this historical context in the decision-making process. The Middle East has remained in a state of tension which began in December 2010, with surges of demonstrations and protests (known as the Arab Spring) occurring in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen. Unrest has followed in other nations as well. The Israeli government continues to embrace its hard-line position under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the negotiation process has stalled on both sides. The prospects for Palestinian statehood rely significantly on renewing peace negotiations and settling on a compromise between both sides. Yet, the continued Israeli occupation of sections of the West Bank and east Jerusalem is an ongoing source of tension, particularly among militant Palestinian factions. This has been exacerbated by recent announcements by Israel that it plans to build new homes in the West Bank, which was met by disapproval from the Middle East Quartet comprised of the United States, Russia, the EU, and the UN. With both sides demonstrating such an unwavering commitment to their own values, the questions now become: if Palestinians are denied a change in their status by the UN, will this provoke a continued cycle of violence and unrest similar to what was seen in the intifadas (uprisings) of the past, and further endanger its future prospects for statehood? Or, if it is granted a status change, will it be able to build a strong state where terrorism is curbed, and how will relations with the hard-line government of Israel evolve? There are other scenarios, but with any outcome one can expect significant developments to unfold in Palestinian affairs in times to come.
--------------------
Dr. Daniel Baracskay is an associate professor of Political Science and Public Administration at Valdosta State University. Dr. Baracskay has a PhD in political science from the University of Cincinnati. He is the author of numerous journal articles and book chapters, including an article titled "Marshall Dimock's Theoretical Legacy" in Public Administration and Management; "Strategic Communication During the Cold War" in Information Warfare 2.0, edited by James Forest; and "The April 1995 Bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City" and "The February 1993 Attack on the World Trade Center" in the popular volume Combating Terrorism in the 21st Century, also edited by James Forest. He recently published a book titled, The Palestine Liberation Organization: Terrorism and Prospects for Peace in the Holy Land in May 2011 through Praeger.
No comments:
Post a Comment