The recognition of Palestinian statehood is a sideshow to Gaza’s genocide

At first glance, last month’s United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) announcement that several major European and North American states had recognised Palestine seemed like a breakthrough in the campaign for a two-state solution.

This has been the policy of most states globally for decades, though it has often involved paying lip service, rather than offering substantive action. Even these modest efforts have been blocked by both Israel and the US, which has rendered the question moot.

But what has Palestine won, and does it bring a two-state, or any, solution nearer to fruition? Unfortunately, the answer is no. A number of such countries have attached conditions, which may prove difficult to meet.

Recognition seems a performative act by states embarrassed by their helplessness in stopping Israeli genocide. In response, they decided they must take some action indicating their displeasure, while doing nothing to stop the carnage or implement any concrete measures to realise their purported goal. It's a sideshow. 

As UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine, Francesca Albanese, declared: “recognition of Palestine distracts attention'’ from the Gaza war. Even if real progress was made toward this goal, it would do nothing to stop the killing, which is the far more urgent need. To state it more concretely: after the ethnic cleansing and mass killings rid Palestine of its inhabitants, will there be any Palestinians left?

What could these states do to force Israel to change its policies: stop shipping weapons to Israel; boycott Israeli products; withdraw diplomatic recognition or expel it from the UN; invoke Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which permits military intervention in conflicts which violate the Charter.

The General Assembly passed a resolution, Uniting for Peace, which provides for “collective measures [including] the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

Each of these would exert intense pressure on Israel, which would, despite its flagrant disregard for international law, shake its resolve to pursue its polices of occupation, apartheid and genocide.

Without instituting any of the policies outlined above, recognition remains a vague concept. It does not offer Palestine sovereignty, nor does it end the genocide, as Albanese noted. These are the two most critical goals the world should be seeking.

Recognition by these states does not guarantee the desired outcome. Israel is the only party which holds the key to implementing statehood.  Currently, it controls Palestinian commerce, finance, natural resources, security, etc. Each of these is a requirement for an independent state.  Without them, Palestine cannot exist. Israel will never permit this unless the world acts decisively to realise them. 

Israel’s protector, the United States, has also played a critical role in quashing any hope of statehood. It has vetoed 49 Security Council resolutions on the Palestine question since 1948. 

Under President Obama, it even voted against a proposal calling for a cessation of West Bank settlements, which, until the Trump administration, has been the declared US policy for over half a century.

Not only has its veto stymied such attempts, but it has also made a mockery of both the UN and the US. The former was shown to be ineffectual, and the latter hypocritical. The result: the continuation of Israel’s disastrous oppression of the Palestinian people.

The French-Saudi initiative to recognise Palestine spurred Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, to prepare a counter-plan. The administration called it a “20-point peace plan", which includes vague proposals such as conditional Israeli withdrawal, an Arab-led security force, and the increased allowance of humanitarian aid. 

As part of this scheme, the US is proposing that Gaza be governed by: "The Gaza International Transitional Authority (Gita)…[which] would seek a UN mandate to be Gaza's 'supreme political and legal authority' for five years."

It would be run by Tony Blair, a longtime figure in Middle East affairs, who is favoured by dictators and ruling elites the world over. He’s known for his “Davos lifestyle” and hobnobbing with the world’s rich and powerful.”

This governance body is reminiscent of the US-sponsored Coalition Provisional Authority, which governed Iraq after it overthrew Saddam Hussein.  The Bush administration poured billions into the effort, which was largely wasted by “corruption, mismanagement and poor planning.” It was a colossal failure, which led to the sectarian violence which beset the country for years afterwards.

The Gaza initiative portends a similar outcome. Blair has no expertise concerning Gaza or Palestinians, without which the endeavour is likely to fail.  His proposed role and the entire scheme reek of the old system of colonial powers imposing themselves and their interests on their colonies.

The proposals in the 20-point plan are not new. They have been part of previous failed peace proposals. Nor have any been previously implemented by Israel despite urging by the US. The former has rejected a call for a ceasefire and a “day after” plan to govern Gaza.

Despite Witkoff’s assurance, “I think it addresses Israeli concerns”, there can be no expectation that Israel agrees with his assumption or will implement the 20-point plan.

The issue of annexation is also moot. Israel does not need to formally annex the West Bank. This is merely a formality. It has taken control of the territory de facto. It expropriates Palestinian lands, it builds new settlements on them, it expels residents of scores of their ancestral villages and herds them into a few remaining towns. It does all this without annexation. Preventing Israel from annexing the West Bank is like locking the barn door after the horse has bolted.

Another fatal flaw is the absence of Hamas from any of these considerations. It represents the Palestinian side. The belief that the PA can assume any role in this process is vain. It assumes something not in evidence.

Not only has the PA been unable to exert control in the West Bank, but it no longer has any support among the people themselves.  Its doddering leadership under nonagenarian Mahmoud Abbas, which has proven corrupt, brutal and made a mockery of its democratic pretensions. How can it possibly exert any influence in Gaza?  Note as well, the proposal’s vague phrase suggesting it has “some role” in future governance.

Israel has already proposed to outsource the problem it has created in Gaza by having troops from unnamed Arab states police Gaza. Despite their favourable response to the peace plan, none have agreed to participate in this operation. Nor has Hamas or anyone in Gaza suggested support for it. The plan ignores the concept of “consent of the governed,” which renders it moot.

Without such an agreement, any foreign force will be resented and resisted. Violence is almost guaranteed. But as far as Israel and the US are concerned, it permits them to wash their hands of a catastrophe they created: a convenient outcome for them.

Richard Silverstein writes the Tikun Olam blog and is a freelance journalist specialising in exposing secrets of the Israeli national security state. He campaigns against opacity and the negative impact of Israeli military censorship.

Follow him on Twitter: @richards1052

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.