Reviewing Bernard-Henri Lévy’s new book about the crisis of the left, Christopher Hitchens says,
He [Lévy] is much readier to defend Israel as a democratic cause than are most leftists and many Jews, but he was early in saying that a Palestinian state was a good idea, not because it would appease Arab and Muslim grievances but for its own sake. (This distinction strikes me as both morally and politically important.)
I think this is an important point and must not be lost sight of. The Palestinians must have a state because they identify themselves as a nation, because they have struggled to obtain it and because the only alternative - keeping the population of the West Bank without democratic rights and under military occupation - is unconscionable. I am aware of the argument that the Palestinians really conceive of themselves as part of a broader Arab nation, but I don’t think that changes anything essential in my argument. A number of existing Arab states make great play of their overarching Arab character and I don’t see any evidence of any them being in a great rush to cast aside their status as sovereign states.
The Palestinans must, therefore, have their state. While we may hope that its formation improves the climate for a regional peace, the prospect that such a development is unlikely should not provide cause to deny them this state.
The Palestinians must have their state even if there is some risk that it may be taken over by the religious fascists of Hamas. Better to face that risk, seek to avoid its realisation and, if necessary, go to war against such a state, than attempt to sustain the status quo.
The Palestinians must have their state even if there is a risk that it may bring about a decline in the objective standards of liberty and welfare enjoyed by the average Palestinian living in the West Bank. Being free from foreign occupation brings with it grave risks as well as huge creative possibilities.
They must have it not because of what happened in 1967, 1948, 1922, 1917 or any other year, but regardless of what might have happened then and because they want it now and identify themselves as a nation now.
They must have it regardless of the fact that it may provide an excuse to worsen the, already grim, situation of Palestinians in places like Lebanon and regardless of the prosperity, security and integration enjoyed by Palestinians and their descendants in other places.
They must have it for their own sake, to face the consequences (both good and bad) it will bring and not because it will please anyone else, which it surely won’t.
Perhaps, though it’s not at all clear.
If a consortium of gangs, together with their families and offspring - some or even many of whom are variously sympathetic characters - decide to embark upon a decades long struggle to take over Hells Kitchen and surrounding territory, also using, in notable part, systematic tactics that involve murder, mayhem, suicide/homicide acts, etc. committed against civilian populations, that also include a sophisticated mix of media and other cooptations - do we in such a case eventually give in to their demands to create a separate enclave, a separate, sovereign nation/state, granting it de facto ligitimacy?
A rough-hewn analogy, but, essentially, what are the minimal, legitimate standards a people needs to measure up to in order to authentically and legitimately claim a nation/state status? It is not in the least clear that the Sunni Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank measure up to that minimal standard.
That doesn’t even broach the question of what they will represent should a facade of formal legitimacy be granted. It is probable, it is highly probable, that their “struggle,” against Israel, would simply continue. Virtually all the evidence suggests precisely that conclusion.
Thank you, Eamonn, for this sane response. Michael B, the Palestinians are not a consortium of gangs. Try reading some Palestinian history as written by Palestinians (for example by Sari Nusseibeh). Whatever we may wish, the Palestinians are a people, and trying to deny that, and keep them under occupation, is doomed to failure. I want the state of Israel to keep on existing as a Jewish state, and I think the only way is to make sure that there is a Palestinian state existing alongside it.
An iron fist, masked in a velvet glove, is still an iron fist.
Sari Nusseibeh, the one example you offer, is very much a mixed bag. I’m always willing to listen to what people have to say, and to observe what they actually do, but Sari Nusseibeh, for example, has suggested the Palestinians should retake Jaffa, has at times said they should advance a one state solution (which would represent the dissolution of Israel) and has also forwarded the idea of a wholesale right of return, which likewise would effectively represent the dissolution of Israel.
There is also a notable problem with Nusseibeh’s historical accounts, for example as reflected in this review of Nusseibeh’s “Once Upon a Country: A Palestinian Life.”
In general however, keeping the “idea” of a two state solution in mind is well and good and is in fact a worthwhile goal. But to imagine that long-term goal might be achieved within any imminent timeframe and barring absolutely fundamental reforms throughout that society - reforms that are nowhere in sight (***) - is to indulge an illusion, a tragic one at that.
*** one salient example is the fact that within Hamas’s charter they acknowledge themselves to be an integral part of the Muslim Brotherhood and more importantly overtly declare that the destruction of Israel remains their goal and likewise, in fact, do not recognize the state of Israel. Note, for example, articles 7, 8, 11, 13 and 32, prominently, in the Hamas charter, effectively their founding document and constitution, here.
There is too much territory to cover, but that serves as a partical response.
Since Israel has evicted all Jews from Gaza and withdrawn it’s military, what has prevented the local Palestinian (Hamas or Fatah) governments from declaring Gaza an independent state, and petitioning the UN for recognition? They didn’t, and still don’t need Israel’s permission. They could always negotiate for more land later. The answer, I suspect, is that they do not want to be held to the standards required of a UN member state. As long as they claim “occupation” they can engage in as much “resistance” as they wish. As a state, they would suddenly have to behave more responsibly, which they consider “humiliating.”