When he spoke at the U.N., President Obama asserted that a Palestinian state cannot come about by U.N.declaration or unilateral action. It can only come about through negotiation and mutual agreement. He is correct, well, in a sense anyway. Israel was created by the U.N. in 1948 after years of Jewish guerrilla warfare (some might call it terrorism) against British forces. British acquiescence to the creation of Israel only came about after years of fighting against Jewish guerrillas. No one asked the Arabs who lived in Palestine for their approval. The United States was established through negotiations only after it had declared independence and then only after years of military struggle by colonial forces. International recognition came later. Blacks in South Africa achieved their goals only after decades of armed resistance and international sanctions gave the South African government little choice. Bosnia came into existence as an independent state after years of warfare and U.N. military intervention brought the Serbs to the negotiation table. Ukraine did not take its case for independence to the U.N. It declared its independence unilaterally. I could go on. Political negotiation for independence succeeds only rarely, and in those cases it succeeds only under particular circumstances, not the least of which is the presence of a civilized and restrained occupying force, as was the case with Gandhi against the British. Where a determined occupying force or colonial power holds the land, negotiations are all but worthless. Pressure and action, military or otherwise, is required.
During America's war for independence the only thing the U.S. negotiated with the British about was the terms of their surrender. The British eventually agreed to U.S. demands but only after years of warfare wore the British down and brought them to the negotiation table. The same can be said of North African independence from the French. While violence did not force the British out of India, a sustained and determined opposition to British rule did. The lesson here is that for negotiations for independence to succeed there must either be good will or resignation on the part of the occupying power. Israel has neither good will for the Palestinians nor are they resigned to a Palestinian state, at least not any state the Palestinians would be content with. The fact of the matter is Israel is not interested in negotiating for the establishment of a Palestinian state because they do not have to. They face no military threat and, as long as they have the support of the U.S., it does not matter what position the rest of the world takes on the issue.
Without a resolution of the Palestinian problem there will never be real peace in the region. Without the possibility of an equitable arrangement for the division of land and the assignation of authority there will always be conflict because, without the possibility of a negotiated settlement, the only choices available to the Palestinians are violence or submission. Without international pressure and the threat posed by Palestinian statehood it is unlikely Israel would be talking to the Palestinians at all. Without international scrutiny I have little doubt that Israel would have herded the Palestinians into camps or driven them out of the country years ago: which would be irony indeed.
It is curious (well, not really), that the U.S. is so selective in condemning unilateral actions in other nations where people are struggling for independence and autonomy. It seems that much depends on the particulars. The U.S. was quick to embrace Kurdish autonomy when it was in our interest but our enthusiasm for it soon faded once we were in charge of Iraq. The U.S. was eager to embrace the break away republics of the former Soviet Union when they declared their independence. We did not insist that they pursue their independence through the U.N. We did not hesitate to recognize Croatia when it declared its independence from Yugoslavia. You can be certain that if an ethnic or religious group rose up in Iran and demanded autonomy or independence the U.S. would be on the spot.
It is time the U.S. ceased claiming it is acting out of universal principle or international law and admitted that we are simply pursuing our interests and that it is not a coincidence that international laws and treaties more often than not correspond with those interests. U.S. policy would not have to change one bit. We would simply claim our prerogative as the world's only super power to act as we see fit. We could without risk of being charged with duplicity or accused of insincerity avow our support of those nations and policies that are in our interest and condemn those that are not. We could candidly pursue our objectives and drop any pretense of neutrality and objectivity. We should tell the world that while we support the U.N. and recognize its authority we consider Israel to be unique and that the laws, treaties, and resolutions that bind other nations do not bind Israel. We should tell the world that the Arabs do not need another state, they have enough already. Lastly, we should tell the world that if they have a problem with that they know where to find us.
But I have gotten ahead of myself here. Palestine is not yet a nation and so has no standing in the U.N. They cannot invoke any of the rights and prerogatives that belong to all nations. That is what the Palestinians are trying to redress. That is what Israel and the U.S. are trying to keep from happening.
