The New Track to Palestinian Statehood
Will anti-settlement sentiment prove a tipping point?
“Fayyadism” is the strategy under which increased state-building in the West Bank would give the Palestinian Authority enough of the trappings of sovereignty that international legitimacy, particularly through the United Nations, would grow to the point that a unilateral declaration of independence may not seem ridiculous. Though it was disowned by its namesake (Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad), and though it is not apparent that state-building is particularly advanced, recent events and currents suggest that Fayyadism may merely have been hibernating during the latest unproductive round of peace talks. Cut to Palestinian President Abbas publicly hoping for a state in 2011.
All of South America except for Colombia and Peru have either recognized or plans to recognize a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders. Abbas was in Brasilia last month for a groundbreaking ceremony—complete with flying doves!—for what will be the Palestinian embassy. Meanwhile, the P.A. is drafting a Security Council resolution that would condemn settlements, which the United States has pledged to veto.
The resolution—which will not call for Palestinian statehood or even sanctions against Israel—is a microcosm of the larger trends: Lacking much in the way of teeth and unlikely to produce any concrete changes in the near future, it nonetheless threatens to prove the groundwork for an eventual climate wherein Palestinian statehood comes to seem inexorable. The point is less the eventual climate than the threat, to Israel and the U.S., that it is in their interests to get onboard.
The fact is—and no offense to Ecuador, which I hear is lovely—these South American nations’ recognition of a nonexistent state don’t, practically, amount to anything. (Although it is interesting that Argentina, with its nearly 200,000 Jews and generally philo-Semitic populace, is among these nations.) And the resolution isn’t even really designed to be passed—the U.S. has pledged to veto it. Besides, even if it were passed, it would explicitly have no practical effect.
But what the resolution is designed to do is embarrass the Americans. After all, as veteran Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat put it, “It’s a very moderate resolution, by design, because we don’t want the U.N. to veto it. We want the international community to tell Israel that the settlements are against international law.” That is not exactly the truth, of course: Erekat does want the U.N.—specifically the U.S.—to veto it, which it no doubt will. This is because, as he goes on to say, since the resolution’s anti-settlement argument basically reflects the Obama administration’s stated position, were the U.S. to veto it anyway, “then that’s a story” (which also isn’t entirely true, since it wouldn’t exactly be the first time the U.S. blocked an anti-Israel resolution, but you see his point).
On top of all this, top American Jewish opinionmakers Thomas Friedman, Jeffrey Goldberg (a Tablet Magazine contributing editor), and David Remnick recently made comments that seemed to go further than they ever had before in condemning Israeli settlement-building as both immoral and dumb. None of what they said is groundbreaking if you have been following the region closely, but most people don’t follow the region closely and instead take their cues from people like Thomas Friedman, Jeffrey Goldberg, and David Remnick, so this is not irrelevant news.
In a sense, Israeli illegitimacy is the new Palestinian state-building: The most resonant argument for fast-tracking an independent Palestine, potentially without Israeli support. This is dangerous: Whereas successful Palestinian state-building is a logical argument for a Palestinian state, Israeli illegitimacy is more of an emotional one. But, of course, that is also why it may be more persuasive. Pointing to a new fire station is one thing. Pointing to a dead protestor is another.
Palestinians To Appeal to U.N. with Anti-Settlement Resolution [LAT]
U.S. Opposes Anti-Settlement Resolution [JTA]
Palestinian FM: Chile, Paraguay To Recognize Palestinian State in Coming Weeks [Haaretz]
Abbas Lays First Stone of Palestinian Embassy in Brazil [JPost]
Earlier: What is Fayyadism?
Too Good To Be True?
Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180
WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.
I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at firstname.lastname@example.org. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.
We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.