The Palestine Question

By Omer Aziz

Every year, the United Nations, in both the General Assembly and the Security Council, votes on a multitude of resolutions involving Palestine and the settlement of peace. It should be of no surprise that a pattern exists in which countries vote for and against these Resolutions. To take a representative example, the U.N. voted on Resolution 62/26 on 22 Jan. 2009. This Resolution recalled past resolutions in its perambulatory statement and then proceeded to outline the action to be taken. It requested “the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination, to support the Middle East peace process” and further cooperation on the Question of Palestine. [1] The vote on the Resolution was decisive: 107 yes, 8 no, and 57 abstentions. The ‘No’ side were: Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Republic of Nauru, Palau, and the United States. Like so many resolutions every year, it was the world on one side, and the United States, with some of its allies (note that France and Britain abstained) on the other. The question then remains, why is the issue of Palestine still a question when almost the entire world recognises it to be a problem that needs to be solved?

The problem of Palestine as it exists in 2009 began in 1967, during the Six Day War which resulted in a decisive military victory for Israel, and the annexation of East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Golan Heights. [2] A corollary of the ‘67 War was one of the most cited UN Resolutions since the institution’s inception, namely UN Security Resolution 242, which, called for:

1. Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
2. Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. [3]

Three years prior to the 1967 War, the Palestinian Liberation Organization was born, and in 1973 Israel went to war again with Arab states in the region. Following this War, the first movements towards peace were made, resulting in the US brokered Camp David Accords in 1979 between Israel and Egypt, with Israel returning the Sinai Peninsula and Egypt recognising Israel. [4] In fact, it was in February 1971, that Sadat, the President of Egypt, offered a full peace treaty to Israel in return for Israel’s withdrawal from territories it occupied since 1967. Golda Meir’s government in Israel rejected the offer and continued to position troops in the Sinai under General Ariel Sharon, under whose command, the Israeli “Defence” Forces were destroying Bedouin towns and building kibbutzim. [5] This decision was backed by the United States, under Henry Kissinger’s policy of “stalemate,” with the rejection of diplomacy leading to the ’73 War until both Israel and the United States realised that Egypt could not be dismissed. By 1989, a coalition government came to power in Israel, and offered its own “peace” plan: there would be no additional Palestinian state between Israel and Jordan – Jordan already being a Palestinian state. As Noam Chomsky argued at the time, this would be the analogical equivalent of the Jews not needing a second homeland because they already had New York. [6] The second major break-through in “peace” talks came in 1993, with the Oslo Accords, which created the Palestinian National Authority, the policemen of the Territories, and led to recognition of the PLO by the United States and Israel. What were not “conceded” were East Jerusalem, settlements, sovereignty, Palestinian refugees, and borders. [7] For many Palestinians, the Oslo Accords were no peace, but, in the words of Edward Said, were a “Palestinian Versailles.” [8]

After the new millennium, the failure to achieve any sustainable peace has been magnified. Camp David in 2000, the Taba Summit in 2001, the Roadmap for Peace, and the Annapolis Conference to name a few were talks which were held and all failed to establish any lasting settlement. [9] Yet, even with all the handshakes, flowery talk, and high-level visits, Palestinians remain a dispossessed people, and Israelis are no closer to living in security. The way forward should learn from past mistakes, not emulate them. First and foremost, both Israel and Palestine should commit themselves to a peaceful settlement. This means that Israel cannot launch “defensive” or “pre-emptive” wars into Palestine, and Palestinians cannot launch rockets into Israel. Palestinians should recognise Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, and Israel should recognise the dispossessed Palestinian people. The borders of Israel should be the pre-1967 borders, with Israel getting some of the major settlement lands in the West Bank, giving Palestinians equal land in both quality and quantity. The Capital of Israel should be West Jerusalem, and the capital of Palestine, East Jerusalem. Israel should also accept a fixed number of Palestinians refugees to morally compensate the Palestinians for their plight since 1948. Finally, the State of Palestine should be recognised by states around the world as having the same rights as all other states (e.g Control over its internal affairs, a military, control over its borders etc.), and immediately be given a seat at the United Nations.

This recipe for peace seems highly unlikely. If Israel favours peace rather than expansion, it would negotiate such a deal. If the United States favours peace rather than uncompromising and unconditional support for its ally in the Near East, it will help broker such a deal. If the community of nations favour an end to this sixty-one year old conflict rather than indifference or complacency, they too will politically and morally support the deal. It is time for states and leaders to stop glossing over the past, and start looking at the reality of the Palestinian situation as one that needs to be immediately solved rather than prolonged for another year, another decade, or another generation. It’s time that the question of Palestine finally be answered.