by Dr. Asaf Romirowsky
Palestinian nationalism has never seen the conflict as one between two national groups with legitimate claims and aspirations. Indeed, Zionism itself – is regarded as wholly illegitimate.
Nabeel Shaath, Member of Fatah Central Committee, Representative of the State of Palestine at the UN in 2016, UN Photo by Jean-Marc Ferré
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: “Occupation”
has become an all-purpose Palestinian tool. On the one hand, the
Palestinians claim the Israeli “occupation” makes serious negotiations
with Israel impossible. On the other, they claim the “occupation” makes
the development of local institutions and civil society impossible.
Western and Israeli diplomats have largely avoided criticism of this
strategy, possibly because it has become a central tenet of Palestinian
identity.
A consistent Palestinian strategy for seeking
statehood while blaming Israel for its absence has been codified through
the narrative of “occupation.” The anniversary of the 1967 war brought
this to the forefront in endless accusations regarding the Israeli “occupation” of the West Bank. There is even an assertion that Gaza is still “occupied.”
Occupation is a Palestinian tool to avoid negotiations, since
“no tactical brilliance in negotiations, no amount of expert
preparation, no perfect alignment of the stars can overcome that
obstacle.” Nor is progress in Palestinian economics,
institution-building, or civil society possible, because – as Nabeel
Kassis, Palestinian Minister for Finance, put it – “Development under occupation is a charade.” Even the Palestinian Authority’s own repression and crackdown on freedom of the press is, according to Hanan Ashrawi, caused “of course [by] the Israeli occupation.” And despite the palpable underdevelopment of Palestinian institutions and civil society, Europe must keep funding them, since
“Preparedness for several possible scenarios with a long-term focus on
functioning institutions is what is required from the EU and other
donors in Palestine.”
In 2011, when Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas
put forward the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) at the UN,
we saw this process in action. The approach is specifically designed to
prevent any direct negotiations with the State of Israel. Some
Palestinian supporters even opposed the UDI precisely because Palestine
“lacks the most essential elements of statehood: independence and
sovereignty, and effective control over its territory. The fact is that
Israel, the occupying power, has the final say in most matters affecting
the destiny of the Palestinian people.”
Despite the high-sounding rhetoric about the
declaration, which followed the 1998 Palestinian “Declaration of
Independence,” its goal was to put the onus for a Palestinian state on
the UN. But Palestinians are already treated by the UN like no other
entity, whether state or people. Vast financial and administrative
resources are dedicated to the
“Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.” Despite
these efforts, which have cost many millions and have lasted almost 70
years, long predating the 1967 “occupation,” there is still no
Palestinian state.
Palestinians and their supporters want to have the
occupation both ways. It is the trump card for their own refusal to
negotiate and failure to develop their own society, but it is also a
useful tool for further internationalization of the conflict and
prolongation of their international welfare status.
This pattern has been clear for decades. Even
Hillary Clinton, then US Secretary of State, understood the façade.
“There is no substitute for face-to-face discussion and for an agreement
that leads to a just and lasting peace,” she said. “That is the only
path that will lead to the fulfillment of the Palestinian national
aspirations … Nor is it viable to build the institutions of a future
state without the negotiations that will ultimately create it.”
Until now, however, successive American
administrations have challenged only Palestinian rhetoric, not
Palestinian methods – and the rhetoric of “occupation” has not been
directly challenged at all. This is because, alongside “refugee-ness”
and victimhood, it stands close to the center of Palestinian identity,
at least in political terms.
The UDI strategy was a diplomatic way of selling
the so-called “occupation.” Nothing can happen in Palestinian society or
politics, such as the development of Palestinian state institutions or a
culture of peaceful coexistence with Israel, because of the
“occupation.” Empty symbolism like the UDI shrewdly facilitates the
long-term Palestinian goal of eradicating Israel by co-opting the UN and
the international community of NGOs. This long march through the
institutions has broadened the global delegitimization of Israel at a
low cost. The inevitable failure of UDI efforts to create a viable
Palestine nonetheless rally the cause, while its political successes
undermine Israel. The speed of change is slow enough to maintain the
illusion of peace and all-important Western aid.
Threats are part of any diplomatic toolbox, and
Palestinians excel at them. Insufficient American trumpeting of
“even-handedness,” and, above all, any challenges to Palestinian
narratives of victimhood (and the resulting need for international aid),
produce new rounds of threats. The Palestinian Authority now sees
stagnation and lack of appetite within the Trump administration,
especially after Jared Kushner’s last visit. Thus did Ahmad Majdalani,
an aide to Abbas, comment after the meeting that “if the US team doesn’t
bring answers to our questions this time, we are going to look into our
options, because the status quo is not working for our interests.”
A new approach to internationalizing the conflict
and promoting the Palestinian narrative is being developed. Hence the
plan to change the international definition of “Palestinian territories
under occupation” into “a Palestinian state under occupation.” This would shift attention back to the “occupation” while requiring nothing from the Palestinian Authority.
Of course, declaring a de facto state
does not make it a reality. Nor will declaring that state to be “under
occupation.” The reality is that both the essential non-existence and
the victimized character of the Palestinian state represent a conscious
decision to embrace failure. This will not change unless there are
direct negotiations, a choice the PA has consistently refused.
While a functioning Palestinian state remains
desirable, it is telling that the Palestinian leadership has refused to
directly negotiate with Israel and uses bodies like the UN to endorse a
“virtual” state with no viable institutions. Is the Palestinian goal a
state of their own, or just the erasure of Israel? If the latter, it is
to be followed by what? Insisting upon a Palestinian state must go hand
in hand with reviving the moribund Palestinian political system and
institutions that would support it, like a free press. But these are
demands that should come first from Palestinians. When such demands come
from Israel or Western countries, they collide with the narrative of
“occupation.”
Palestinian nationalism has never seen the
conflict as one between two national groups with legitimate claims and
aspirations. Israel’s existence – indeed, Zionism itself, the very idea
of Jewish nationalism – is regarded as wholly illegitimate. Palestinian
acceptance of the two-state solution was a means of appeasing the West
and its stated desire for all parties to live in peace according to
democratic, national ideals. But for Arafat in his day and now for
Mahmoud Abbas, the two-state solution was a mechanism with which to buy
time until the Palestinians can finally overcome and defeat Israel. The
language of “occupation” plays a key role.
Whether Palestinians think they are an “occupied
state” or “Palestinian territories under occupation,” as long as
Palestinians cling to the notion of being “occupied” and Israel remains
the “occupier” we are destined to see more of the dynamics of the past
and fewer possibilities in the future. Until we see more self-awareness,
self-criticism, and a sense of accountability, Palestinian identity and
statehood will remain occupied in perpetuity. Palestine is indeed
“occupied” by shadows of its own making.
BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family
Dr. Asaf Romirowsky is the executive director of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME) and a Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Source: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/palestine-occupation-strategy/
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment